URL originale : https://books.openedition.org/irdeditions/47408

Chapter 15. How elephants are bridging epistemological boundaries
p. 297-312
Texte intégral
Background and interdisciplinary challenges
1Interdisciplinarity has been a growing theme across both the natural and social sciences for some time now, with ecology noting the importance of the “human dimensions” in nature conservation (Manfredo et al., 1995) and the critical sciences calling for an “animal turn” to “bring the animals back in” to the social sciences (Wolch & Emel, 1995). While there has been significant disciplinary crossover, there arguably remains a “great epistemological gulf” (Brosius, 2006) that has not yet been overcome. The conservation literature’s engagement with people is almost entirely positivist in its approach, being hypothesis-driven, with quantified data and mathematical models, looking for generalisable patterns at scale. Positivism is, of course, understood in many ways. In this essay, I use its dictionary meaning, “a philosophical system recognising only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism” (OED, 2018). While theism is not particularly relevant to this chapter, I assume this epistemological position rejects all other ways of knowing, while the critical social sciences approach is largely post-positivist or interpretivist, with qualitative data and focused on generating new ways to think about human-animal relations. While social scientists are interested in animals and natural scientists are interested in people, the boundary lines are arguably drawn at epistemological approaches and methodology. To overcome this, Adams (2007) calls on natural scientists to “think like a human”, with the need being to have “interdisciplinary people” rather than “interdisciplinary teams”.
2In this chapter, I argue this is beginning to happen at some level around elephant research. Still, there needs to be a more broad-based understanding of epistemology for it to become more widespread. Adams (2007) believes “interdisciplinary people” should perhaps be epistemologically neutral researchers who are equally comfortable in the epistemic foundations of both the natural and critical social sciences. To discuss this further, I use a personal and reflexive approach to examine my own journey of what I call “inter-epistemological” research with elephants and people and also draw on some of the work of some well-known elephant biologists.
3I undertook a part-time PhD (2019) that, in total, spanned six years while I worked on applied conservation projects at the human-elephant interface in the Nilgiris, South India, through The Shola Trust, a non-governmental organisation I co-founded. I spent short stints every year in the UK and a full year towards the end writing my thesis, where I was supervised by an anthropologist, an environmental geographer and two human geographers. For the most part, I sat in a long-term ecology lab and interacted with elephant biologists on a regular basis. Interdisciplinarity was always high on the agenda and a natural outcome given the context of my research. Overcoming the epistemological contradictions, however, was a significant challenge. I first encountered this when studying people and their varying interactions with elephants. Given my supervisory team, the qualitative and post-positivist approach was an easy enough choice, using mixed methods with both qualitative and quantitative data (Thekaekara et al., 2021). The more serious epistemological challenge I encountered was when we started systematically studying the elephants, an area of research that was clearly dominated by positivism. Here I will first attempt to briefly summarise some of the ideas around epistemology and then discuss how I negotiated this while studying elephants. I then make a case for more epistemologically neutral research, which can fulfil the requirements of both the positivist and post-positivist approaches without prioritising one over the other.
Disciplinary boundaries
4Briefly mapping the underlying research philosophy and terms employed is perhaps an important starting point. Any broad-scale simplification is clearly fraught with problematic essentialisation and generalisation, but some heuristic classification remains useful for this essay. I do not attempt an in-depth discussion but highlight some of the key ideas from Alan Bryman’s (2012) Social Research Methods textbook to differentiate between the natural and critical social sciences, which differ in four key ways.
5Firstly, though not in order of priority, the natural sciences are usually based on quantitative data. Secondly, the role of theory is deductive, to test hypotheses. Thirdly, a positivist epistemology rejects knowledge that is not collected empirically and cannot be subjected to mathematical analysis or proof. Finally, objectivism is an ontological position that implies every entity has an inherent reality. The critical social sciences, on the other hand, use qualitative data and take inductive approaches to generate new theories. An interpretivist or post-positivist epistemology recognises other forms of knowledge and uses constructionism as an ontological position—that entities are constructed through the perceptions and actions of social actors. These are not rigid boundaries, and qualitative positivism is also a part of social science research (Prasad & Prasad, 2002), but I find this generalisation useful in understanding the research around elephants and their interactions with people.
6The “scientific method” forms the foundation of the natural sciences and is defined as “a method of procedure that has characterised natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses” (OED, 2018). It forms the basis of the natural sciences methodology. A key criticism of this approach, however, has been of “biological reduction” (Kohn, 2007), which is particularly relevant to elephants, where the process of quantification and reducing all aspects of human-elephant interactions to basic measurable variables potentially loses more than it gains. A better understanding of this interface perhaps “…requires recognition and understanding of its complexity, rather than reducing it to its most simplistic parts…” (Rust et al., 2016: 1079). The positivist epistemo-logy that rejects other ways of knowing and does not allow for factoring diverse worldviews has clear relevance for how people live with animals, particularly if a culture practices animism, which regards nonhumans as ontological equals.
7Conducting inter-epistemological research, particularly with elephants, is not merely mixing methods but also carefully negotiating the underlying philosophical boundaries of various disciplines, ensuring the requirements are satisfied. While this may seem like a daunting prospect, I argue that it is perhaps already happening with elephants, possibly on account of the species’ own agency where they force relationships with the people studying them.
Understanding elephants and ethograms
8My lack of training in the biological or animal behavioural sciences and the absence of a formal supervisor in these fields meant I had no set methodological framework to follow. The motivation to study elephants was primarily to more systematically understand elephant individuality—anecdotally, it was common knowledge that elephants, like people, were all different from each other. Some named individuals were known to be “peaceful” and relatively comfortable around people, while most of the elephants were known to stay away from or avoid people. This motivation, though I didn’t realise it at the time, was arguably at odds with the natural science approach, which looks for generalisable patterns.
9My intention was to replicate methods used by biologists, and our first task was to create an ethogram for elephant behavioural observation. This consists of an exhaustive structured table of all the precisely defined behaviours an animal exhibits that are mutually exclusive and usually grouped into categories like feeding, social, solitary, aggressive etc. This list is made based on preliminary observations to allow for a quantified measurement/classification of the animal behaviour that is independent of the observer, avoiding subjective, anthropomorphic generalisation in the descriptions and interpretations about behaviour. We had enlisted the help of biologist colleagues to do this. We also wanted to identify individual elephants based on morphology; the ears were key, noting the depigmentation and tears at the edges or folds on top as they got older.
10Field work began in 2015, and I distinctly remember one of our first days with biologist colleagues. The forest department staff had all been instructed to help us, and we rushed off to an area where elephants were reported. We got there and found the elephants had just been chased up the hill by the local people and one group of forest staff. There was considerable excitement in trying to retrace the elephants’ path and look at the photos of the elephants on local peoples’ mobile phones. The Forest Range Officer (FRO) got a call about there being elephants in another place, and we all piled into jeeps and headed off in that direction. There was a commotion at the second place—the elephants were actually being chased, and we could hear people shouting and banging drums in the valley below, though we could not actually see the elephants from the tea-covered slopes we were on. We then got called back to the first place, where elephants had been spotted again. We split up into two groups, not wanting to miss any of the action, and we kept moving around to get a different view and trying to see the elephants. A local estate worker had brought five young tourists to see the elephants. The forest department officers shouted at him for endangering people’s lives. He shouted back at them, claiming he could do what he wanted on private land and no one was in danger. The tourists, however, got scared and left. A few hours went by like this. Then finally, one of the watchers came running up to us and called us to the neighbouring hillock, since the elephants were about to be chased out that way. We ran around the hill and waited eagerly. Finally, the elephants emerged, coming almost directly at us. We had our cameras at hand, and about six cameras started clicking away furiously. Some staff jumped into the frame and wanted us to photograph them and the elephants with “fancy” cameras. The elephants seemed quite calm and composed, all things considered, but soon sensed us and moved back into the wooded valley. We had seen them for all of six minutes. A haggard group of forest department staff then followed. They had lost their voices from all the shouting. They had not had anything to eat or drink all through the day, and it was almost 4 pm. We left all the staff there and started walking back to the main road. We took the first bend around the hill and came upon another tusker. We retreated quickly, then remembered our task was to photograph and observe the elephants, and tentatively began photographing him from a safe distance.
11When we sat down later in the evening to take stock of the day, the reaction from the biologist was interesting:
“This place and the elephants are not proper. You can’t do any rigorous behavioural studies with suitable sampling methodology. This is really no place for elephants. No ethogram can be made for this type of situation, where people are chasing them all the time, and it’s a completely unnatural environment. At best, you can try ad libitum sampling; no rigorous sampling will work.”
12This sentiment highlights the complexity of the region. The context of the elephant observations in the region is relevant; in most instances, elephants were in constant interaction with people: either being chased away from human habitation, being held at bay with smoke/fire screens to allow local people right of way, given right of way while traffic/people were held up, being monitored over a period of several hours in forest patches amidst intense human activity (labourers in plantations, traffic, school children playing/walking etc.), or watched or chased from feeding at a garbage dump. On the rare occasion, elephants could be observed quietly browsing or resting in the hills. Behaviour such as “feeding”, for example, could be at a garbage dump, on local people’s crops while being chased, in a small swamp or patch of natural vegetation surrounded by houses and people, or on a remote hill slope or forest relatively undisturbed by people. Capturing the context of human-elephant interactions was almost as important as the elephant behaviour. A two-tiered ethogram may have worked, first to capture the context of human-elephant interactions and then the behaviour, but collecting enough data to be statistically significant would be the next challenge. The conservation group Elephant Voices lists 23 contexts of elephant behaviour (avoidance, birth, feeding, play etc.) and a few hundred individual behaviours for the ethogram (their website https://www.elephantvoices.org has the full ethogram) without accounting for human interaction. Attempts to create a standard ethogram for all animal behaviour have been criticised since the “…complexity of behavioural output, whose multidimensionality in space and time beggars both verbal and graphical representation…” (Drummond, 1985). It was then reasonably clear that the ethogram would not be the most suitable tool to study individuality and behaviour in the region. The suggestion to use ad libitum sampling was interesting, where it is described as “…unconscious sampling decisions, often with the observer recording ‘as much as he can’ or whatever is most readily observed of the social behaviour of a group in which behaviours, individuals and often the times for behaviour sessions are chosen on an ad libitum basis…” (Altmann, 1974: 235). This seemed similar to the ethnographic approach we had been using with the people, and we decided to use a comparable approach.
13To identify individual elephants, we took photos and videos. Once there were reasonably clear images from the right, left, front and back, the images were laid out along with some notes about the elephant to create an “Individual Elephant Profile” (IEP, see Figure 1). In conjunction with field staff, each elephant was also given an alphanumeric identity (ID) and name. IDs were based on geography or the range they were first sighted in, and MK (“makhna” or tuskless male) or T (tusker) were added for the males (e.g. CMK1, CT1, CT2, etc. were the Cherambadi makhnas or tuskers) (see Figure 2). For the female-led herds, H was added to denote the herd (OVH was the O‘Valley Herd or KMH the Kotamalai Herd—and individuals within it were numbered OV1, OV2 or KM1, KM2, etc.). Names were based on some of the characteristics or behavioural traits of the elephant. OVT7/Alibaba Basheer, for example, was the O‘Valley tusker 7, who had perfected breaking electric fences with his tusks and could open any gate. KK1/Rani Kapikaad was the matriarch or “queen” of the Kapikaad forests. We also collected some information around the context of the human-elephant interaction and made detailed notes about what the elephants were doing—what we called “elephant ethnographies” later qualified as multispecies ethno-graphy, as we also significantly engaged with the people (Parathian et al., 2018; Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010).
Figure 1. Poster used to help field staff identify individual elephants (The Shola Trust, 2016).

Figure 2. Ganesan, the most well-known elephant in the region (The Shola Trust, 2016).

Elephant ethnographies and quantified data
14Despite my disillusionment with the ethogram, the need to connect with the existing biological literature on elephants remained. We had no “hypothesis” when we started nor had we structured and quantified the data we were collecting—only detailed notes from each of our elephant observations. But in a few months, patterns began to emerge; there were some elephants from the neighbouring protected area (Mudumalai) that only came out at night, raided crops and went back. Elephants in the Cherambadi region were almost “urban”—they never went into contiguous forests at all and were seen even around houses throughout the day, while the O’Valley elephants would be seen for a few days and then disappear into contiguous forests for a few weeks.
15I spoke to biologist colleagues about this pattern, but they were unimpressed—“Do you have any data to support this, or are you saying this based on your perceptions?” The need for quantified “data” was evident, and it was possible to extract this from the qualitative data. At each of the interactions, from our notes we began to “score” the various para-meters such as the level of land use modification, the reactions of the elephants to people, the reaction of people to elephants and so on, generating some quantitative “data” to show the elephants were indeed significantly different from each other. We, therefore, fulfilled some of the requirements of the positivist approach and could also retrofit a hypo-thesis to the study (individual elephants are consistently different from each other in their interactions with people). But the problem of biological reduction that ethological research has been criticised for remained (Kohn, 2007). How could we stay true to the complexity of human-elephant interactions beyond the quantified scores while also presenting all of this nuance to the wider community of elephant biologists?
16What I have found particularly interesting is that this problem is linked more to the discipline rather than the individual field biologists who interact with elephants regularly and who often possess a more expansive view of knowledge. Around my home, for example, I encounter four different tuskers—OVT3/Silver Monstera, OVT6/Kokkal Moopan, OVT7/Alibaba Basheer and OVT8/Arumugam Kuppaiswamy. Of these elephants, I “feel” the least threatened by Moopan, followed by Monstera; I will not attempt to move away but will try to be quiet and observe them. With Kuppaiswamy, I am scared and will invariably move further away or even run. With Basheer, I am curious—I don’t feel like I know much about him, so I will try and watch him more but always remain ready to flee. When I encounter the elephants, or if I have to advise family or friends on what to do if they come across them, I will not attempt to use any of my “data” but will rely on my intuitive feelings, which are subjective judgements based on the quality or depth of the interactions, not just on the number of interactions. Discussing this with field biologists, I find they all agree—how you behave around elephants has to be based on intuition, not science or data. They speak of a sixth sense. Some of the more thinking biologists are aware of the limits of the natural science framework—there may be some other interaction between elephants and people (one explained it could “…possibly be based on some electromagnetic waves coming off brain activity…”) that we do not yet understand.
17This practical, skilled knowledge that is generated through the continuous negotiation with elephants is something that is discussed extensively by anthropologists. “Skill” is something that is both biological and cultural and is vital to something like an ethnographic method, of knowing what to look for or to “learn to see anew” (Ingold, 2000); even more so for elephant ethnographies or multispecies ethnography. Biologists engaging significantly with elephants perhaps have developed this skill, even if they are unaware of the anthropological thinking and literature on the subject.
18In the writing of many well-known biologists, there is almost a contradiction between their scientific and “popular” writing. In their science, they are objective and detached from the elephants as mere objects of study, while their popular writing highlights their subjective positions and meaningful (anthropomorphic) interactions they have had with the elephants they study. Saba Douglas-Hamilton’s (daughter to Ian Douglas-Hamilton, one of the pioneering African elephant researchers) first interaction with an elephant is one example of this:
“On Saba’s first meeting with Virgo, her mother, Oria, approached the elephant on foot holding her newborn baby in her arms. Virgo let them come close then stretched out her trunk and took a good long sniff of the baby. She then coaxed her own calf forward as if to introduce it to the humans.” (Douglas-Hamilton, n. d.).
19Almost all of the early elephant biologists have written books for popular consumption (e.g., Douglas-Hamilton & Douglas-Hamilton, 1975; Poole, 1996; Sukumar, 1996; Payne, 1998; Moss, 2000). These describe their meaningful interactions with elephants in great detail and are not limited by questions of objectivity and distancing themselves from the animals. From these popular writings and from interacting with some of the early elephant biologists (who significantly engaged with elephants in the field), I would argue that all of them have actually engaged in elephant ethnography, and their ethological data is merely a subset of all the information and knowledge they gather about the lives of elephants. The “biological reduction” is only to satisfy the epistemological requirements of their disciplines—the practitioners themselves have never actually allowed the tick boxes in the ethogram to get in the way of their attempts to experience the inner lives of elephants. The biologists, as people, are arguably doing what the more-than-human geographers are calling for, disciplinary boundaries notwithstanding.
20Overcoming this “biological reduction”, therefore, may not be as significant a task as it seems; it is merely the disciplinary boundaries that need to be reconfigured. The question of “sensing elephants”, for example, which is being discussed in methods around more-than-human geographies (Brown & Dilley, 2012), is something that elephant biologists and others who interact with elephants routinely are all acutely aware of.
Conclusion. Conducting inter-epistemological research
21Through my work, I have attempted to balance the requirements of both the positivist and interpretivist approaches to knowledge: to have quantified, verifiable or replicable data, yet also incorporate the depth of qualitative data generated, while being aware of positionality and not rejecting the practical skill, experience and knowledge of human-elephant interactions. Field biologists who regularly interact with elephants have acquired both of these sets of knowledge, but the latter is considered anecdotal and informal. There is clearly tremendous potential for them to more formally engage with the methodological rigour of ethnography and post-positivist approaches to knowledge, bringing greater dimension to their work. Such work is gaining ground at the human-primate interface with “ethnoprimatology” approaches (Dore et al. 2017), now with a dedicated journal titled as such, bridging the ethnography-ethology gap.
22Ethnography, or more specifically the growing field of multispecies ethnography, is arguably the most suited to better understand the human-elephant interface. Piers Locke and Ursula Münster (2015: 1) provide one of the most recent descriptions of the phrase, from which I selectively highlight the key elements that are relevant to this essay:
“Multispecies ethnography is a rubric for a more-than-human approach to ethnographic research… acknowledges the interconnectedness and inseparability of humans and other life forms, and thus seeks to extend ethnography beyond the solely human realm… attentive to the agency of other-than-human species… a challenge to the humanist epistemology upon which conventional ethnography is predicated, specifically its ontological distinctions between nature and culture, human and nonhuman, subject and object”.
23In retrospect, I think there are a few key factors that allowed me to remain “epistemologically neutral” and work with seemingly contradictory approaches to what constitutes knowledge. The first is perhaps my lack of formal training in either the social or natural sciences. In most of my early work, I felt the lack of training in biology was a limitation, but it eventually turned out to be an advantage as I was not trained to prioritise one universalist epistemology over another. More diverse and interdisciplinary undergraduate programmes are a useful starting point, many of which are already in place.
24The second is the duration of fieldwork. The average doctorate in the biological sciences involves one year of fieldwork, with many studies based on multiple years’ observations, often driven by the need to have statistically significant data. Engaging with large and potentially dangerous animals like wild elephants is invariably guided by indigenous “trackers”, people with long experience in being in the presence of these animals (Sukumar, 1989; Easa, 1988). It takes a few months to get attuned to the field site and for the animals (in some cases) to get habituated to the researcher before data collection can start, which is arguably a more dangerous version of “finding your feet” in ethnography (Geertz, 2001: 13). While anthropology has traditionally relied on extended fieldwork lasting over at least a year, human geography relies on fieldwork of much shorter durations (usually on the scale of months), and there remain very few critical social scientists who have been able to significantly engage with elephants, particularly over multiple years. Being enrolled in a part-time programme was a vital element in my trajectory, where much of the work at the NGO was interwoven with the research questions I was interested in. I spent five years doing fieldwork, culminating in a year away from all the complexity and intensity of human-elephant interactions, to be more reflexive when analysing the data and writing the thesis. Conservation practitioners engaging with formal research is perhaps a good way to allow for this, ensuring a commitment to fieldwork over extended periods.
25The third is the people I have interacted with, starting, of course, with my supervisors from varying disciplines and my peer group. The students and post-doctoral researchers I sat and interacted with on a daily basis spanned both the critical social sciences and biology—from geographers and zoologists at Oxford to biologists in India. All of these people were clearly doing interesting and relevant research; continued informal discussions centring on the practice of nature conservation ensured that both these epistemologies remained relevant. This wide and diverse network of people has been critically important in allowing me to remain committed to the two contradictory approaches to research and knowledge.
26While not all of these elements in my research trajectory are replicable for other researchers undertaking interdisciplinary research, a number of them are—particularly supervisors from different disciplines, extended fieldwork, and a commitment to the changing realities on the ground and continued interactions with people from different epistemological backgrounds.
27Given the context and reality of India—with over two-thirds of the world’s Asian elephants and tigers living alongside humans at a high density of over 400/km2—conservation and even ecology must inherently include the human. Lewis (2003) argues that many of the pioneering ecologists in India in the 1980s, trained in the North American methods from “pristine wilderness”, have always encountered people; they perhaps had a role in “Inventing Global Ecology” by writing humans back into the equation. I would argue that this happened almost unintentionally; questions in ecology could not be answered if the humans were ignored. The hope now is that much of the future research can include the human by design, while taking it a step further—by embracing multiple ways of knowing and practising inter-epistemological research.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.
Adams W. M., 2007 – Thinking like a Human: Social Science and the Two Cultures Problem. Oryx, 41: 275-276.
Altmann J., 1974 – Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour, 49 (3): 227-266.
Brosius J. P., 2006 – Common Ground between Anthropology and Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 20 (3): 683-685.
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00463.x :Brown K., Dilley R., 2012 – Ways of Knowing for ‘Response‐ability’ in More‐than‐human Encounters: The Role of Anticipatory Knowledges in Outdoor Access with Dogs. Area, 44 (1): 37-45.
10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01059.x :Bryman A., 2012 – Social Research Methods. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 766 p.
Dore K. M., Riley E. P., Fuentes A., 2017 – Ethnoprimatology: A Practical Guide to Research at the Human-Nonhuman Primate Interface. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 324 p.
10.1017/9781316272466 :Douglas-Hamilton S., n. d. – About Saba. https://sabadouglashamilton.com/about/
Douglas-Hamilton I., Douglas-Hamilton O., 1975 – Among the Elephants. New York, Penguin Publishing Group, 285 p.
Drummond H., 1985 – Towards a Standard Ethogram: Do Ethologists Really Want One? Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 68 (4): 338-339.
Easa P. S., 1988 – Movement Pattern of Asiatic Elephant, Elephas Maximus, in Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala. Kerala Forest Research Institute Research Report, 54. https://docs.kfri.res.in/KFRI-RR/KFRI-RR054.pdf
Geertz C., 2001 – Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 288 p.
10.1515/9781400823406 :Ingold T., 2000 – The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London/New York, Routledge, 465 p.
10.4324/9781003196662 :Kirksey S., Helmreich S., 2010 – The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25 (4): 545-576.
10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x :Kohn E., 2007 – How Dogs Dream: Amazonian Natures and the Politics of Transspecies Engagement. American Ethnologist, 34 (1): 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.3
10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.3 :Lewis M. L., 2003 – Inventing Global Ecology: Tracking the Biodiversity Ideal in India, 1945-1997. Vol. 5, Hyderabad, Orient Blackswan, 305 p.
Locke P., Münster U., 2015 – Multispecies Ethnography. Oxford Online Bibliographies, Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0130
10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0130 :Manfredo M. J., Vaske J. J., Decker D. J., 1995 – Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management: Basic Concepts. In Knight R. L., Gutzwiller K. (eds.): Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research, Washington DC, Island Press: 17-31.
10.4324/9780429039706 :Moss C., 2000 – Elephant Memories : Thirteen Years in the Life of an Elephant Family. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 364 p.
10.7208/chicago/9780226148533.001.0001 :OED, 2018 – Home: Oxford English Dictionary. Website http://www.oed.com/
Parathian H. E, McLennan M. R., Hill C. M., Frazão-Moreira A., Hockings J. K., 2018 – Breaking through Disciplinary Barriers: Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography. International Journal of Primatology, 39 (5): 749-775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-018-0027-9
10.1007/s10764-018-0027-9 :Payne K., 1998 – Silent Thunder: In the Presence of Elephants. New York, Simon & Schuster, 288 p.
Poole J., 1996 – Coming of Age with Elephants: A Memoir. New York, Hyperion, 304 p.
Prasad, A., Prasad P., 2002 – The Coming of Age of Interpretive Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (1): 4-11.
10.1177/1094428102051002 :Rust N. A., Tzanopoulos J., Humle T., MacMillan D. C., 2016 – Why Has Human-Carnivore Conflict Not Been Resolved in Namibia? Society & Natural Resources, 29 (9): 1079-1094.
Sukumar R., 1989 – Ecology of the Asian Elephant in Southern India. I. Movement and Habitat Utilization Patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 5 (1): 1-18.
Sukumar R., 1996 – Elephant Days and Nights: Ten Years with the Indian Elephant. New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 236 p.
Thekaekara T., 2019 – Living with Elephants, Living with People: Understanding the Complexities of Human-Elephant Interactions in the Nilgiris, South India. PhD Thesis, The Open University.
10.4324/9781315270845 :Thekaekara T., Bhagwat S. A., Thornton T. F., 2021 – Coexistence and Culture: Understanding Human Diversity and Tolerance in Human-Elephant Interactions. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2: 77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.735929
10.3389/fcosc.2021.735929 :Wolch J., Emel J., 1995 – Bringing the Animals Back In. Environment and Planning, D 13 (6): 632-636.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Composing Worlds with Elephants
Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org
Composing Worlds with Elephants
Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.
Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org
Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.
Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.
La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.
Référence numérique du chapitre
Format
Référence numérique du livre
Format
1 / 3