Limits and Possibilities: Understanding and Conveying Two-Eyed Seeing Through Conventional Academic Practices
This article offers conceptual and theoretical insights that we gained in a scoping review project to understand the Mi’kmaw guiding principle Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk. Reflecting on the experiences and outcomes of the scoping review project, we explore the following questions: (a) To what extent...
Published in: | Healthy Populations Journal |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Other Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Healthy Populations Institute
2022
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ojs.library.dal.ca/hpj/article/view/11295 https://doi.org/10.15273/hpj.v2i2.11295 |
Summary: | This article offers conceptual and theoretical insights that we gained in a scoping review project to understand the Mi’kmaw guiding principle Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk. Reflecting on the experiences and outcomes of the scoping review project, we explore the following questions: (a) To what extent can we rely only on written works and the English language to understand Two-Eyed Seeing? (b) How do academia’s conventional ways of thinking and sharing knowledge shape our abilities to understand and convey Two-Eyed Seeing to others? (c) What strategies can academics draw upon to better understand Two-Eyed Seeing? Ultimately, we contend that, to develop a richer and more nuanced understanding of Two-Eyed Seeing, we need to move beyond academic conventions and engage with a multiplicity of knowledge systems, approaches, and methods, including dialogical, visual, and experiential practices. |
---|