Integrating Science With Indigenous and Experiential Knowledge in Collaborative Governance

ABSTRACT With the growth of collaborative governance and multistakeholder forums, tensions arise between expert‐driven decision making and inclusivity of decision processes. Scientific experts can bring vital information to inform decisions, but scientific jargon, assumptions, methodologies, and underlying concepts may disempower participation from stakeholders who bring different knowledge, such as expertise in Indigenous (including traditional ecological) knowledge and experiential knowledge. Participants in collaborative organizations thus navigate and use diverse kinds of knowledge. Unfortunately, little is known about how collaborative partnership participants value and integrate science in relation to other knowledge sources. This study examines collaborative ecosystem restoration in the Puget Sound basin, USA. Our analysis compares the use of scientific knowledge to other forms of knowledge by actors across different collaborative organizations. Survey results indicate natural science is seen by participants in collaborative partnerships as the most important type of information, followed by Indigenous (including traditional ecological) knowledge, and then several kinds of experiential knowledge. Ranking lower are two kinds of science, social‐ecological systems science and social science. While these multiple ways of knowing are all seen as important, respondents overwhelmingly expressed the view that science should be privileged over other kinds of knowledge. Respondents reported low frequency of barriers to accessing scientific and other information, which center mainly on lack of time to find it. Respondents perceive factors that promote knowledge integration through deliberation are largely present. Overall, this study highlights the challenges of integrating scientific with other kinds of knowledge in collaborative processes for ecosystem restoration.