Two-Eyed Seeing Is Not a Knowledge Salad: One Eye Sees Science, the Other Must See Power
Original Chinese title: Two-Eyed Seeing不是知識拼盤：一眼看見科學，另一眼也要看見權力
Two-Eyed Seeing is often misread as a pretty cross-domain slogan: half Western science, half Indigenous knowledge, stirred together and served. The problem is that knowledge is not salad. Two-Eyed Seeing is not compromise; it is an epistemic ethics that demands both sides change posture.
Two-Eyed Seeing Lab
Cross-domain presentations love to put an elder on the first slide, a microscope on the second, then announce 'traditional and modern hand in hand.' After the applause, the research question is still decided by the university, funding still managed by the institution, data still entering external servers, while the community gets only a group photo. The most dangerous form of respect sometimes places you on the first slide, then forgets you in decision meetings.
Two-Eyed Seeing, also known as Etuaptmumk in Mi'kmaq context, does not add a cultural filter to such processes. It demands that we use one eye to see the power of Indigenous knowledge and another to see the power of Western science, learning together for mutual benefit. The point is not equal allocation of space but changing how we look, ask, and collaborate.
Concept Core: Not Mixing, But Mutual Seeing
'Mixing' makes people think two knowledge systems can be broken into parts, then a third party picks useful pieces. Mutual seeing acknowledges each has its own history, methods, responsibilities, and criteria for validity. Scientific measurement can identify trend changes; community long-term observation can point out seasonal, relational, and anomalous meanings; when they meet, one does not need to translate the other first to count as knowledge.
This also means Two-Eyed Seeing cannot be arbitrarily transplanted into a global slogan. It comes from a specific Mi'kmaq epistemic context. Other peoples wishing to draw lessons should first understand the source, respect naming, and let local communities decide what kind of co-working suits them.
Why the 'Salad Version' Fails
The common salad version puts traditional knowledge in research background, scientific methods in research design, then decorates results with community photos. Traditional knowledge is allowed to provide clues but not to decide questions; it can assist sampling but cannot veto uses; it may speak at result presentations but does not necessarily own the data.
Such collaboration fails not because of knowledge differences but because power differences are pretended away. When one side controls funding, ethics review, journal language and career rewards, while the other can only offer stories and local relations, 'taking each other's strengths' easily becomes 'the strong taking what they deem useful'.
Two-Eyed Seeing Challenges Not Methods But Power
True two-eyed knowledge asks: who poses questions? Who decides evidence sufficiency? Who may pause research? Where is data stored? To whom are results explained first? Who corrects errors? If commercial interests arise, who has negotiation rights?
These questions are harder than 'interview or sensor' because they hit institutional habits. Researchers may need to slow timelines, share author positions, accept partial knowledge cannot be public, and acknowledge uncertainty is not community backwardness but responsible description of knowledge boundaries. Both eyes open indeed makes things more inconvenient, especially for those accustomed to seeing the world through only one system.
Application in Indigenous Traditional Medicine and Ecological Education
In traditional medicine fields, mutual seeing is not taking plant knowledge to save lab search costs. Science can assist testing safety, interactions and quality control; communities decide which knowledge may be studied, how care contexts are described, who accesses data, and how results return to public health. Respect does not exempt verification, nor does verification mean taking over knowledge.
In ecological education, students learn water quality data, species surveys and community seasonal observations, place names, collection ethics simultaneously. Teachers do not force both into the same answer but let students understand: different methods see different scales, with different responsibilities. Instruments tell us numbers changed; local knowledge may remind us this change has already affected whose lives.
How Media Should Report
When reporting two-eyed knowledge, media should explain concept origins and not lump all Indigenous knowledge under one 'ancient wisdom.' Interviews should not only seek scholars to explain communities but also let knowledge holders state cooperation conditions; when reporting results, ask not just what research found but what control communities gained, how data is preserved, which contents are deliberately kept private.
More importantly, do not write conflicts as 'traditional versus science.' Many disputes are not anti-science but oppose scientific institutions monopolizing definitions, extracting data or excluding communities. Cutting out power issues leaves a pretty harmony story that is also inaccurate.
Conclusion: Both Eyes Open Makes Things More Inconvenient
Two-Eyed Seeing is not a knowledge buffet nor a cross-domain project cultural sticker. It demands science acknowledge its place and requires both sides to take responsibility for relationships, consequences and mutual benefit.
True mutual seeing does not guarantee immediate agreement; it may make differences clearer. But that inconvenience is precisely the value: when both eyes are open we finally see not only what different knowledges can do but also who has always stood outside the lens bearing costs for the entire research site.
AI use and content-safety disclosure
This article was drafted by Yuan Media AI's daily article factory and published after editorial verification; Two-Eyed Seeing originates from Mi'kmaq epistemic context, and this piece serves as public knowledge commentary while still avoiding arbitrary generalization.