Linking Applied Ethnobotany to Social Learning: A Participatory Tool for the Promotion of Indigenous Plants Use in Matutuíne, Southern Mozambique

In its search for pathways towards a more sustainable management of natural resources, development oriented research increasingly faces the challenge to develop new concepts and tools based on transdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinarity can, in terms of an idealized goal, be defined as a research approach that identifies and solves problems not only independently of disciplinary boundaries, but also including the knowledge and perceptions of non-scientific actors in a participatory process. In Mozambique, the Centre for Development and Environment (Berne, Switzerland), in partnership with Impacto and Helvetas (Maputo, Mozambique), has elaborated a new transdisciplinary tool to identify indigenous plants with a potential for commercialization. The tool combines methods from applied ethnobotany with participatory research in a social learning process. This approach was devised to support a development project aimed at creating alternative sources of income for rural communities of Matutuíne district, Southern Mozambique, while reducing the pressure on the natural environment. The methodology, which has been applied and tested, is innovative in that it combines important data collection through participatory research with a social learning process involving both local and external actors. This mutual learning process provides a space for complementary forms of knowledge to meet, eventually leading to the adoption of an integrated approach to natural resource management with an understanding of its ecological, socio-economic and cultural aspects; local stakeholders are included in the identification of potentials for sustainable development. Sustainable development itself, as a normative concept, can only be defined through social learning and consensus building between the local and external stakeholders.

Methodologies for the Analysis of HCV-Specific CD4(+) T Cells

Virus-specific CD4(+) T cells play a major role in viral infections, such as hepatitis C virus (HCV). Viral clearance is associated with vigorous and multi-specific CD4(+) T-cell responses, while chronic infection has been shown to be associated with weak or absent T-cell responses. Most of these studies have used functional assays to analyze virus-specific CD4(+) T-cell responses; however, these and other detection methods have various limitations. Therefore, the important question of whether virus-specific CD4(+) T cells are completely absent or primarily impaired in specific effector functions during chronic infection, has yet to be analyzed in detail. A novel assay, in which virus-specific CD4(+) T-cell frequencies can be determined by de novo CD154 (CD40 ligand) expression in response to viral antigens, can help to overcome some of the limitations of functional assays and restrictions of multimer-based methods. This and other current established methods for the detection of HCV-specific CD4(+) T cells will be discussed in this review.

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.

'Institutional Shopping' for Natural Resource Management in a Protected Area and Indigenous Territory in the Bolivian Amazon.

Focusing on an overlapping protected area and indigenous territory in the Bolivian Amazon, this article discusses how indigenous people continue to negotiate access to natural resources. Using the theoretical framework of New Institutionalism, ethnographic data from participatory observations, and interviews with Takana indigenous resource users and park management staff, we identified four phases of institutional change. We argue that under the current institutionally pluralistic setting in the overlapping area, indigenous users apply “institutional shopping” to choose, according to their power and knowledge, the most advantageous institutional framework in a situation. Indigenous users strategically employed arguments of conservation, indigeneity, or long-term occupation to legitimize their claims based on the chosen institution. Our results highlight the importance of ideologies and bargaining power in shaping the interaction of individuals and institutions. As a potential application of our research to practice, we suggest that rather than seeing institutional pluralism solely as a threat to successful resource management, the strengths of different frameworks may be combined to build robust institutions from the bottom up that are adapted to the local context. This requires taking into account local informal institutions, such as cultural values and beliefs, and integrating them with conservation priorities through cross-cultural participatory planning.