Author: kastipt

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.

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. 

Our field trip to the Missouri Botanical Garden Archive was very informative. We learned so much new information about plant cataloging, and gained a better understanding as to what goes on behind the scenes at the garden. The documents were different than I had imagined. They are on normal pieces of paper and the plants are held on to the paper using tape, glue and even dental floss. Additionally, most, if not all, have barcodes on them which may lead the viewer to the Tropicos database. Each plant contains a text that may include different things. For example, it can give a description or not depending on who found the species, and additionally the area, family, genes, and locality. The catalogs are not comprehensive, they are simply snapshots of that specific time according to that botanist. If that botanist chooses to have a description with their plant, they may interview a local to figure out the uses and other details about the plant. However, this can show biases because they only show one point of view of the interviewee. This means that the overall voices of the culture may be silenced. This results in the botanist having the loudest voices within the catalogs because they have the total freedom and power to pick and choose details that they think need to be with the plant. We can relate this information to our research team because the cultures involve some indigenous knowledge (or lack thereof). We can use these catalogs as building blocks in order to fill in gaps with future information. With all the information we learned during our visit, I believe that in order to fill in the culture aspect of the plants, the botanists need to interview multiple different people within the culture, in order to represent it respectively and fully. In conclusion, our time at MOBOT was very helpful and informative in relation to our theme within our research team.

Below is an image of a plant pressing we examined. It shows a plant pressing which demonstrates my point about how each plant has descriptions. Additionally, it shows how the plants are held on with glue and dental floss.

Kasey Tipton

Causal Chain Analysis

Kasey Tipton

October 11, 2023

Multimodal Composition #2- Causal Chain Analysis

According to chapter three in Sustainable World, written by Sonya Remington-Doucette, a causal chain analysis is “a tool for analyzing socioecological systems by classifying key drivers, establishing the relationships among drivers, and determining their relative influences on a system.” (Remington-Doucette, 123). A causal chain analysis is needed to identify indicators relating to sustainability, link our problem to the drivers that are causing our problem and the extent of them, and to see how human interaction is affecting our problem. Causal chain analysis can be made in different ways. As graphs, charts, or even simply listing them out. Below is a graph example of a causal chain analysis.

An Example of a Causal Chain Analysis

https://iwlearn.net/manuals/tda-sap-methodology/development-of-the-tda/causal-chain-analysis/what-is-causal-chain-analysis

To understand our causal chain analysis, we need to identify our problem: Reparative Justice. According to the New England Board of Higher Education, “reparative justice is  a way of thinking about justice (a mindset) that centers those who have been harmed, and focuses on repairing past harms, stopping present harm, and preventing the reproduction of harm.” (NEBHE). Within our CODES cohort, we are working with the Missouri Botanical Gardens in order to help emphasize biodiversity within their plant conservation. There are many different problems within the herbarium and their plant catalogs. This is an issue that needs to be stopped right away in order to prevent our future generations from being hurt. Furthermore, it needs to be helped in order for the problem to not repeat itself. As you will see below, there is a chart demonstrating how community, victims, and offenders all tie in together to our theme of reparative/restorative justice. 

The Factors that are Relating to Reparative Justice

https://www.marincounty.org/depts/pb/divisions/adult-services/restorative-justice

“Causal chain analysis promotes deeper understanding of sustainability problems by connecting drivers to the problem.” (Remington-Doucette pg. 147) In order to solve any wicked problem, it is very important to know the direct and indirect drivers of a problem. Direct drivers are things/people that have a direct influence on an issue. Indirect drivers are the things/people that are not directly causing a problem, but they are problems that are learning into the direct drivers. In our case of reparative justice, we need to understand our drivers. 

Direct and Indirect Drivers Chart Created By Me

Within the chart above, I have identified a few of the possible drivers of our problem. One driver in reparative justice is the lack of historical representation. This can be caused by having bias in choosing what gets displayed at the gardens and online. It can be influenced by the people or group of people who are responsible for this aspect of the Missouri Botanical Gardens. Our second driver is the lack of diversity within the plant conservation. This is affected by several indirect drivers. For example, where the data is being taken, when the data was recorded, and who recorded the data. A third direct driver could be a bias in our data. Nowadays, plant conservationists and researchers tend to prioritize western science. Additionally, bias can be affected by the motivation of the person recording the data, who is collecting the data, and when. A final direct driver could be the access to the Missouri Botanical Gardens. However a person decides to view the gardens, whether that be online or in person, it costs money. Entry tickets for the gardens are roughly around $14 depending on the day/time a person plans to visit. Furthermore, if someone wants to access the garden online, they have to have access to the internet (which also costs money). 

Causal Chain Analysis Created by Me

As you may see, I took the direct drivers from my first chart, in order to create my causal chain analysis. Even though I chose the main problem as being “cultures may feel overlooked/scammed when visiting the Missouri Botanical Gardens”, there are many different problems an individual may choose based on reparative justice. Reparative justice is a broad term, especially dealing with the gardens because there are many different reasons reparative justice needs to be fixed. Such as healing the individuals/cultures that have been influenced, displaying proper biodiversity within the gardens, and to stop future generations from being hurt by the lack of cultural representation.

In conclusion, according to Sustainable World, written by Sonya Remington-Doucette, a causal chain analysis is “a tool for analyzing socioecological systems by classifying key drivers, establishing the relationships among drivers, and determining their relative influences on a system.” (Remington-Doucette pg 123). A causal chain analysis is very important for individuals who are trying to solve a wicked problem. In our case, we need to act promptly and knowledgeably in order to help restorative justice at the Missouri Botanical Gardens.  

Sources:

“Reparative Justice.” New England Board of Higher Education, https://nebhe.org/reparative-justice/. Accessed 12 Oct. 2023.CloseDeleteEdit

Remington-Doucette, Sonya. Sustainable World.