To Örebro University

This paper uses uncertainty generated by environmental change and climate crisis as a prompt to rethink the concept of vulnerability within disaster studies. Where some have sought to recover a latent political potential in vulnerability, a togetherness founded in the disclosure of insecurities to others, we argue that there is value in refusing to settle on any single meaning. This is explored directly through an analysis of narrative interviews with persons bearing different vulnerabilities in four European countries. Tracking forms and expressions of vulnerability across research sites, we identify an unease and fragility in knowledge of disaster risk, before assessing how people nevertheless make sense of their experience and act collectively to find ways through uncertainty. The paper also considers vulnerability reflexively in the context of epistemic practices, suggesting that modesty and openness to more localised ways of knowing might contribute to the adaptability and responsiveness of disaster studies. We conceptualise these diverse dispositions to uncertainty as vulnerable knowledge.

Culture and tradition have long been the domains of social science, particularly social/cultural anthropology and various forms of heritage studies. However, many environmental scientists whose research addresses environmental management, conservation, and restoration are also interested in traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous and local knowledge, and local environmental knowledge (hereafter TEK), not least because policymakers and international institutions promote the incorporation of TEK in environmental work. In this article, we examine TEK usage in peer-reviewed articles by environmental scientists published in 2020. This snapshot of environmental science scholarship includes both critical discussions of how to incorporate TEK in research and management and efforts to do so for various scholarly and applied purposes. Drawing on anthropological discussions of culture, we identify two related patterns within this literature: a tendency toward essentialism and a tendency to minimize power relationships. We argue that scientists whose work reflects these trends might productively engage with knowledge from the scientific fields that study culture and tradition. We suggest productive complicity as a reflexive mode of partnering, and a set of questions that facilitate natural scientists adopting this approach: What and/or who is this TEK for? Who and what will benefit from this TEK deployment? How is compensation/credit shared? Does this work give back and/or forward to all those involved?