Exercise 9. Taxonomies

Name of exercise: Taxonomies, taxonomic sorting

Tools: Pen, paper and objects (or local terms written on paper) for sorting into taxonomic groups

Time needed: 1 – 2 hours

Description: This variation on sorting allows researchers to understand local ways of characterizing the relationship between objects that belong to a specific domain. The result is a taxonomy, a hierarchical classification of mutually exclusive categories. In ethnobiological studies, taxonomic sorting provides insights into local classifications of plants, animals, soils, vegetation types and other features of the environment. When done in public, with the participation of men and women, young and old, it is a good educational tool that can be used to share and reinforce local perceptions of the natural environment.

How to do it: Taxonomies are constructed by sorting objects (for example, samples of soil, fruits, pasture grasses, etc.) or written cards containing the local terms for these items (if the participants are literate). The range of objects to be classified should be defined through free-listing, interviewing, participant observation or other techniques. Randomize the objects or cards by mixing or shuffling them, and then ask individuals or small groups to split them into two or more groups. As there may be different views on how to sort the cards or objects, participants should be given plenty of time to discuss how they would like to proceed. After the initial sorting into similar classes, participants can be asked to divide the resulting piles again, forming a hierarchical classification of two to three levels. Participants should record the structure of the classification (the number of piles, and names of items in each pile) after each stage of sorting. In addition, they should define the characteristics that distinguish the various classes. After the taxonomy is completed, the individuals or small groups present their results to the whole group. If botanists, soil scientists, zoologists or other knowledgeable researchers are present, scientific names can be added to the taxonomy, next to the local terms.

References:

Chaterton, P. and K. Means. n.d. Community Resource Conservation and Development Toolkit. Unpublised manuscript compiled by the World Wide Fund for Nature. Pages 75 – 76 "Etnotaxonomy".

IIRR. 1996. Recording and Using Indigenous Knowledge: A Manual. Silang, Cavite, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Pages 97 – 98 "Taxonomies".

Example: The fifth year students of the Department of Pharmacognosy and Pharmaceutical Botany of Khon Kaen University brought samples of 18 different locally available fruits to the classroom. Three small groups of 8-9 people each came up with independent ways of splitting the fruits into distinct categories. For example, one group – whose classification is shown below – sorted the fruits according to an initial criterion of taste, classifying twelve fruits as sweet and six fruits as sour. The participants then made a second division of these categories according to shape and texture: of the sweet fruits, ten were categorized as round and two as long; of the sour fruits, four were grouped as smooth and two as rough. A third level of sorting drew upon even more specific criteria. The long, sweet fruits were considered to be a terminal category, but round, sweet fruits were further separated into ‘simple’ and ‘clustered’ categories. The smooth, sour fruits were further classified as thick or thin-skinned, whereas the rough, sour fruits were divided into ‘no-seeded’ pineapple and ‘seeded’ salacca. The terminal categories contained from one to five members.

BACK