Month: April 2024 (Page 1 of 2)

Kasey Tipton

April 23, 2024

Our group’s focus is on Indigenous knowledge within the Missouri Botanical Gardens. Our research question is, “How is Indigenous knowledge lacking within the garden?” Our priority is finding the gaps of Indigenous representation. We used  two mixed methods, interviews and surveys, in order to collect data. Our survey had received 7 responses and we interviewed 6 people. Doing the small focus groups helped us receive more nuanced explanatory data. However, I think surveys and interviews are both important in gathering data. I believe our survey did not go as planned because these are difficult questions being asked. It could be that some people do not want to feel incompetent, so they just didn’t answer the survey.

Our survey responses left some blank areas within our data. Furthermore, not only did we only have 7 responses, but some people did not answer certain questions. Our group made the visualization below using Qualtrics in order to show answers to our ranking question in our survey data. The question was “Where would you rank the priority of including Indigenous Knowledge in the Garden?” Our responses show that most people thought it was relatively high.

With this being said, our interviews went a lot smoother. There were two people during each interview, and we interviewed 4 times. Troy and I were taking notes, Kadynce was asking the questions, and Evitt was doing the audio recordings. People were able to be descriptive and more thorough with their responses. It seemed easier to people to answer questions in person, rather than thinking about what to type on a survey. Along with this point, in the interviews, people seemed to think longer to answer the same questions. If our group could do this differently in the future, we would try to stick to the idea of larger focus groups (rather than two people at a time) because it improves our data when people can bounce ideas off of each other and add to what others say.  We asked six questions to each interviewee including:

The results of our data will help our group tremendously. It has shown us different areas that already include Indigenous knowledge. On the other hand, it has shown us areas of improvement. We can use this information to figure out how to portray Indigenous knowledge evenly throughout the garden. Our interviews overall had similar responses with the survey. For example, our question, “Where do you think Indigenous Knowledge belongs in the garden?” A lot of our responses said that it should be easily accessible in places that involve Indigenous knowledge. In another word, everywhere. One of the most important notes that was given was for us to help the garden improve on allowing for Indigenous knowledge to be important year round. Rather than celebrating it for a specific month/week. The responses in the interviews were easier to interpret than the surveys because they were more detail-oriented.

Using mixed methods on this topic was very important. It gave us multiple different viewpoints on these important topics. Even though our survey and interviews went very well, I think it would be important to hear about how the public feels about Indigenous knowledge. I would like to hear the perspectives of the garden visitors and if they have even heard of Indigenous knowledge within the garden. This can help us in the fall semester because now we know how the workers in the Garden feel about this topic and their insights.

Creating our surveys was a long process that needed a lot of patience and careful refining. Getting good answers from our survey participants was hard. We thought we got 33 responses at first, but only 11 were complete after checking more closely. More than half of the people who started the survey didn’t finish it. Still, the 11 complete responses gave us enough insight at on the lack of African American knowledge at MOBOT.

We wanted to understand how the current employees at MOBOT see the lack of African American representation and knowledge in the herbarium. To do this, we asked questions like “What problems do you see in adding African American knowledge to the garden?” and “How well do you think the gardens show African American knowledge and contributions?” Most answers were similar.

A visualization of things the staff has seen at the garden that represent AA knowledge. 

This clearly shows that the employees agree that there is a major lack of Black knowledge in the garden.

We also wanted to be clear about what we meant by African American knowledge. We defined it as “the experiences, history, culture, and contributions of people of African descent in America.”

In our research with the CODES team, we looked at the history of African American knowledge in the garden. We found that the work of enslaved people in botany is often not recognized or acknowledged. They didn’t get credit for their discoveries. We want to fix this by focusing on their stories and trying to make things right through our research. This semester, we used surveys to hear directly from MOBOT. We asked questions like “How well do you think the gardens show African American culture, history, and contributions?” and “What can be done to add African American knowledge to the garden’s work?”

From looking at the survey and our research, we found some themes. Many people think the garden does an okay job at showing African American knowledge, but some think it doesn’t do well at all.

One big theme was that people want to see more diverse events and programs in the Gardens. They want more things that celebrate Black culture, history, and contributions. For example, one survey response said, “Put up signs all around the garden. Celebrate African American holidays, history, community, events, and employees. Make it easier for everyone to come to the garden.” This is important because botanical gardens are mostly about plants, but they should also be places for different cultures to share and celebrate.

When I talked to MOBOT employees, I noticed that donors are important to the garden. Most donors are older, white, and rich. Because they can choose where their money goes, African American knowledge isn’t a big priority for them. It would be good to have more diverse events and programs in the Gardens. There aren’t many diverse staff members, and donors could help with this. They could give money for scholarships and programs for African American students and researchers who want to study plants. This could help make sure that African American knowledge is respected and included in the botanical community. Many of the survey participants were white, so it’s still important to make the garden more diverse.

In the future, our research shows that MOBOT needs to think about and fix the unfair treatment of enslaved people in the past. This could mean making programs and exhibits that talk about the work of enslaved botanists, working with their descendants, and making rules that try to make things fair. By focusing on these people’s stories, the Garden can become a more fair and welcoming place for everyone who visits.

SURVEY

This Lab consists of 2 parts, those being our surveys and the focus group we conducted. The other people in my group are Kyra, Jaidyn, and Jay, our research question is “How does colonialism affect the garden and herbarium”. Sadly, our survey wasn’t very helpful, with us only getting a singular response. This was disappointing because we put a lot of effort into making sure it was perfect and that our questions wouldn’t be difficult to answer. Leading to all of us wondering what we could have done wrong, as we understood it was a topic people didn’t really want to talk about. Due to its uncomfortable nature, but it still is important even if people don’t want to talk about it. We are trying to bring it to a better light, but due to the heaviness of our question. We think it’s the reason for the singular response we got. 

FOCUS GROUP

Due to the lack of responses to our Lab it is a bit difficult to properly answer this lab. However, our focus group interview went a lot better than the surveys, because we actually had people with us to answer the questions we were asking. A question we asked was “what programs do you think MOBOT most effectively educates visitors about the impacts of colonialism on botanical knowledge?”. An answer to this question was that they had a table at the orchid show to help people learn and they would talk about the practices of acquiring the orchids. Which is a start to the education of colonialism, but a singular table isn’t going to have the big impact that they are looking for if they want to properly inform visitors. Another question that we asked was “how do you think we could bring information to the people who come to the garden about the historical practices within the garden?” An answer that we got was that they are actively working on ways to bring information to these people and they are working cross program, which means multiple parts of the garden are working together to find a way to get that information out. 

when our interview was put into voyant

With our research I don’t think we’ve learned everything that we needed to know. As there is still so much, we could have learned if people answered our survey. I think maybe for our study next time that we maybe make the questions either more simple or try basing our questions on how our peers made their surveys. As they all got a lot more answers than we did, they must have done something that we just didn’t. I have nothing specific that I want to know currently but, the information I would like to know more is for the partners to elaborate a bit more about what they said in our focus group. So, we could get an even better idea of what they are working towards that relates to our research topic. 

Troy Shaffer

Dr. Hildebrandt

CODES122

16 April 2024

Mixed Methods Lab

            Our final lab for our research team was broken into two parts, we made a survey about Indigenous Knowledge in Missouri Botanical Gardens (MOBOT), as well as did a focus group with several members of the staff also about Indigenous Knowledge in MOBOT. Unfortunately, with our surveys, we did not get the number of responses we aimed for, with only 7, but 7 is better than none. I would say that the focus group was definitely a better experience overall and helped us get better responses to our questions, due to the fact that we were face to face. When you are face to face, you aren’t given much time to think about the perfect answer, like with an online survey, so with the focus group interviews, I feel like we got more raw honest answers

Our focus group interviews were supposed to fill in the gaps from the questions in our surveys, however our surveys did not do well. So, we had to reword some questions to help us get more information that was lacking from our survey responses. The picture below is a word cloud from one of our interviews. One obvious pattern was seen with our focus group interviews, and it was with our last question, “What knowledge should be honored or protected within the information gathered?”. Almost all of the staff responded said something along the lines of that everything is voluntary, and all information is accurate. We got good responses from everyone we interviewed, but at some points it sort of felt like they were media trained with their answers.

            Our surveys were a struggle. It took forever for us to get responses, only to end up with seven total. But our survey was directed towards staff members at MOBOT, and asking them about Indigenous Knowledge and its place at MOBOT. One of our questions was “How have you seen the garden portraying Indigenous Knowledge?”. One response we got was quite interesting, “We could be doing more, I actually have a hard time thinking of examples when the Garden has handled this topic well. I can actually think of more examples of times the gardens missed opportunities to present local knowledge very well through social media and local TV/radio spots (Kwanzaa, Indigenous Peoples Day, and Japanese Festival)”. This just shows that one of the biggest problems and issues is actually acknowledging the problem.

Kasey Tipton

April 11, 2024

Our group’s focus is on Indigenous knowledge within the Missouri Botanical Gardens. Our research question is, “How is Indigenous knowledge lacking within the garden?” Our priority is finding the gaps of Indigenous representation. We used  two mixed methods, interviews and surveys, in order to collect data. Our survey had received 7 responses and we interviewed 6 people. Doing the small focus groups helped us receive more nuanced explanatory data. However, I think surveys and interviews are both important in gathering data. 

Our survey responses left some blank areas within our data. Furthermore, not only did we only have 7 responses, but some people did not answer specific questions. With that being said, our interviews went a lot smoother. People were able to be descriptive and more thorough with their responses. It seemed easier to people to answer questions in person, rather than thinking about what to type on a survey. Along with this point, in the interviews, people seemed to think longer to answer the same questions. If our group could do this differently in the future, we would try to stick to the idea of larger focus groups (rather than two people at a time) because it improves our data when people can bounce ideas off of each other and add to what others say. 

The results of our data will help our group tremendously. It has shown us different areas that already include Indigenous knowledge. On the other hand, it has shown us areas of improvement. We can use this information to figure out how to portray Indigenous knowledge evenly throughout the garden. Our interviews overall had similar responses with the survey. For example, our question, “Where do you think Indigenous Knowledge belongs in the garden?” A lot of our responses said that it should be easily accessible in places that involve Indigenous knowledge. In another word, everywhere. One of the most important notes that was given was for us to help the garden improve on allowing for Indigenous knowledge to be important year round. Rather than celebrating it for a specific month/week. This point helped 

Using mixed methods on this topic was very important. It gave us multiple different viewpoints on these important topics. Even though our survey and interviews went very well, I think it would be important to hear about how the public feels about Indigenous knowledge. I would like to hear the perspectives of the garden visitors and if they have even heard of Indigenous knowledge within the garden. 

In our findings within the CODES research teams, my team dove into the history of African American knowledge within the garden. We discovered that the contributions of enslaved people to botany often go unrecognized or unacknowledged. These enslaved individuals lacked proper credit for their botanical discoveries. We aim to rectify this injustice by centering their stories and prioritizing reparative justice throughout our research. This semester we used surveys as a tool to hear directly from MOBOT. Our questions included some of the following: “How well do you think the gardens currently represent African American culture, history, and contributions?” and “What strategies or approaches do you suggest for effectively integrating African American knowledge into the garden’s initiatives?”. 

In analyzing the findings from both the survey and my time conducting research with my team, several themes and patterns emerged that shed light on the significance of Black representation and engagement within the gardens. Many participants believe the garden does a slightly good job at representing African American Knowledge, some say not well at all.

One significant theme that emerged was the desire for more diverse programming and representation within the Gardens. Many desire to see more events, exhibitions, and educational programs that highlight Black culture, history, and contributions to the field. One response from the survey states we can do the following: “Signs all around the garden. Celebrating and highlighting African American holidays, history, community, events, and employees. Opening access to the garden for efficiency.” This theme is particularly significant as these challenges of botanical gardens are solely dedicated to the study of plants and biodiversity, highlighting the need for these spaces to also serve as platforms for cultural exchange and celebration.

Something I found interesting while conducting the in-person interviews with the MOBOT employees was the significance donors have to the garden. Most, if not all donors at MOBOT are older, white, and upper class, and because they have a voice in where their money goes, African American Knowledge is not a top priority for most unfortunately. What can be done about this? Diverse programming and representation within the Gardens would be great. There is a huge lack of diversity within the staff and I believe donors can help with this problem. Donors can establish endowments to provide scholarships and fellowships for African American students and researchers interested in studying botany and related fields. By providing financial support for education and training opportunities, donors can help cultivate the next generation of African American botanists and scientists, ensuring their knowledge and perspectives are represented and valued within the botanical community. Many participants in the survey were white, this continues the need for diversity within the garden.

Moving forward, our research indicates the need for the Missouri Botanical Garden to confront and address the historical injustices perpetuated against enslaved individuals. This might involve initiatives such as creating educational programs and exhibits that highlight the contributions of enslaved botanists, establishing partnerships with descendant communities, and implementing policies that prioritize reparative justice. By centering the stories of these individuals, the Garden can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable environment for all visitors.

Evitt Nashed

April 10th, 2024

Our Final Lab for Codes 122 was a conducted survey that was sent out to the public and MOBOT researchers to get a more thorough understanding of our wicked problem. My group’s survey was about the lack of knowledge within the MOBOT about indigenous knowledge. We decided to ask a series of questions in our survey about indigenous knowledge in the MOBOT and what we would get as a result to help us resolve this wicked problem. We only got 7 responses to our survey, which was less than we thought but was better than nothing! The people who participated in our survey ranged from research and department leaders to graduate students, scientists, and even librarians.

        One of our questions was, “What does indigenous knowledge mean to you?” A couple of people responded with traditional and environmental knowledge used for their benefit. Another answer we got was Any specialized environmental knowledge from a local group. They also gave us examples like Indigenous folks, organic gardeners, and craftworkers. We also had two responses about Robin Wall Kimmerer’s work and book about correlations of “native” and “Western” taxonomies: even Sacajawea’s role in the Lewis and Clark Voyage of Discovery.

     Another question in our survey was how we can implement indigenous knowledge into the gardens. We got good answers about implementing research they conducted in the Madagascar Program. Another way we can incorporate indigenous knowledge is through exhibits, and also continuing to incorporate this into Western scientific research from the garden. Mostly, all researchers claimed that indigenous knowledge should be implemented everywhere in the MOBOT.

   One of our last questions was about how indigenous knowledge should be showcased. These survey takers thought that museum exhibits and signs in the garden were good examples of showcasing indigenous knowledge. Other examples could be tours or guest speakers talking about the use of indigenous knowledge. A linkage I found within all these answers for this specific question is that all of them preferred signage as a good way to spread the word about indigenous knowledge. Signage is the design or use of signs to get a message to the public.

   This survey overall helped us fill in the gaps and missing pieces of what we wanted to know about indigenous knowledge. Our surveys also helped to raise awareness about indigenous knowledge and why it should be implemented in the Gardens. Indigenous knowledge can give us insights into how these certain people lived and survived with only their natural resources. We can use this information to make MOBOT a less Westernized facility.

    Even though we got good responses to our survey, MOBOT still has qualitative challenges and problems that are hard to fix.  Libraries, databases, and archives can be one example of a challenge the garden faces where the knowledge is broad, but not deep. Another challenge is that it is difficult to get more detailed information from indigenous communities because meaningful and sustained community connections take much time to receive. Many indigenous people do not have the communication resources we have so it takes a good amount of time to get good information.

The instructions for the final lab write up:

• Contextualize and interpret themes and patterns. Why are they surprising or significant? How do they support or challenge your prior knowledge? 
• Mixed methods research allows us to approach a question from multiple angles to gain breadth and depth of understanding. How do your results relate to your survey? Did the qualitative study fill in the gaps you hoped it would? Did the results support your initial conclusions? Did they reveal complexity or tensions? Did they challenge them entirely?
• In addition to exploring the data, also reflect on your research design. Did you learn everything you need to know? How might you design the study differently next time to encourage more detailed or accurate information?
• While mixed methods research gives us a more holistic perspective on our topic than a single method, this doesn’t mean there’s nothing left to learn or that you’ve answered every question completely! Research is iterative – that means that we keep coming back to our topic in different ways to build up layers of knowledge and understanding. So, reflecting on what you’ve done so far, what else do you want to know?

---

Phase one

Surveys

My group includes Jay, Jaidyn, and Sophia. We are focusing on “how does colonialism affects the garden and the herbarium”. This lab has two parts, the first part was our surveys, and the second part of the lab was the focus groups we conducted. Our surveys kind of fell off and didn’t get the attention of the garden partners like we were hoping to get. At the end of that phase of our lab, we ended up only getting one response all together. Which was kind of disappointing for me and my team because we worked really hard on the survey, formulating specific questions and strategizing for weeks. So, we had to ask ourselves “what exactly did go wrong”, with our surveys. The topic of our research question has an “uncomfortable ” aura around it already because it is a heavy topic, but it is still a very important topic to talk about and raise awareness about it. the best thing that we could think is that maybe our surveys were asking too “heavy” of questions for a survey. Here below is an example of some of our surveys.

---

Phase Two

FOcus Groups

After carefully analyzing the feedback, we got back from our initial survey (though it consisted of just one response), we realized that the needed to refine and rephrase certain survey questions for greater clarity and relevance. Additionally, recognizing the value of soliciting insights directly from our garden workers, we decided to craft new inquiries and discussion points tailored to their expertise and experiences. As we prepared for the focus groups, we identified a diverse array of individuals within the garden community whom we sought to engage with our inquiries. Through collaborative effort, we formulated a comprehensive set of questions designed to get a nuanced perspectives and valuable insights. Below, are the refined and expanded list of questions that emerged from this iterative process:

---

Phase Three

Data analysis and data cleaning

In our recent tactics, our focus has been keenly directed towards the meticulous realms of data analysis and data refinement. This phase entailed a comprehensive set of data procured from various surveys and focus groups, followed by an intricate process of scrutiny and interpretation. Our aim was not merely to compile information but to look deeper into the narrative within the datasets to hopefully steer our future actions regarding the development of the untold history and extractive processes at the gardens.

We also wanted to employ a sort of systematic approach. So, with each focus group transcript was processed into a suitable and a form of analytical platform. Through this arrangement, we sought to look at recurring themes and patterns, unraveling the complex threads of responses across the focus groups. This examination not only facilitated a nuanced understanding of the collected data but also unveiled potential avenues for further exploration for the garden.

The breadth of perspectives and experiences shared by participants underscore the significance of our research endeavors. The insights we found through our analytical endeavors serve as a compass, guiding us towards the formulation of a plan that aligns with our overarching objectives and research question. With a clearer vision and a more comprehensive understanding of the past, we are better equipped to navigate the complexities of our WICKED problem, paving the way for a hopeful meaningful progress and sustainable growth in the Missouri Botanical Garden.

Our data after being put into Voyant.

---

Voyant Tools. https://voyant-tools.org/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2024.

Missouri Botanical Garden. https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2024