**4. Discussion on ethnobiology of** *C. spinarum*

*C. spinarum* (Apocynaceae) is a species that is varied and widely distributed across the globe covering many diverse habitats. There is a volume of ethnobiological knowledge recorded in many of the regions where it is found, particularly in Eastern Africa and South Asia. Across most of its range it is found to be part of the local culture, being valued in ritual, health and healing, diet and a range of other applications.

The predominant role of *C. spinarum*, in the studies examined in this analysis, is in healing and diet, reflecting the research focus in the analysed studies. All parts of the plant are eaten though eating of ripe berries is most commonly reported. The most common EM use of *C. spinarum* in humans across all geographical areas is in the treatment of digestive system, while other body systems such as respiratory and skin are represented to a lesser extent. An analysis of geographic variation reveals a different picture. In Eastern Africa, malaria, STIs and spirit-related illness such as Evil Eye, are the most commonly treated while in South Asia, fever and digestive complaints predominate. Though the particulars of treatment vary across geographical regions, the dominant documented pattern is that the root is prepared by decoction and administered orally. The exception to this is in Australia where use of *C. spinarum* matches trends in local EM practices more broadly and is mainly administered by fumigation or application.

Ethnobiology is a wide and varied discipline with research agendas covering the natural and social sciences including such diverse subjects as indigenous rights, migration, biocultural diversity, health, research ethics and reflexivity [12]. When conducting research on medicinal species, the research focus could involve, for instance, cultural record, health care provision, sustainable plant use, environmental protection or bioprospecting. The ongoing preponderance of Phase I research, lacking cultural contextualisation and theoretical focus, is continually critiqued within

ethnobiology and ethnopharmacology [32, 36, 198]. This holds true whatever the research focus.

The phenomenon is reflected here in the studies containing *C. spinarum* with the majority falling into the Phase I category. Two-thirds of studies analysed are Phase I, lacking even minimal information on the context of plant use or examination of therapeutic indications. They also lack detail on the many aspects of plant remedy preparation and administration. As Phase I research usually represents a bioprospecting agenda, the findings show significant lacunae in the information available on *C. spinarum* for guiding further scientific study. One quarter of studies have Phase II character with some emic detail, providing cultural context to EM practices. The studies ascribed to Phase III involves participatory research and accounts for 11% of studies while 0.5% of studies have Phase IV or V character.

Phase I may be dominant in this analysis due to the nature of this analysis itself. Searching for an individual species may be biased towards cataloguing studies. *C. spinarum* is a medicinal and dietary species and this fact may self-select for Phase I studies with decontextualised catalogues of species and their therapeutic and dietary indications favoured in bioprospecting studies. Another reason for the lack of later phases in this analysis of the ethnobiology of *C. spinarum* could be the nature of ethnobiological research itself. In ethnobiology in general, there has been a shift recognised in Hunn's Phases towards an ecology and action-focused research agenda and away from its roots in anthropology [199]. These research agendas do not necessarily require the naming of particular species, which may explain the relative absence of later ethnobiological phases in this species analysis.

The absence of ethnographic content in this analysis places this body of *C. spinarum* data largely in the Phase I category. The emic perspective, limited in this research, is vital to an improved understanding of plant use and is an essential component of all ethnobiological research, whatever the phase. Frazão-Moreira illustrates the ongoing centrality of ethnographic research in ethnobiology [35]. However, in ethnopharmacological research, the socio-cultural focus has been in decline over the past three decades [200]. The relative lack of ethnographic content in ethno-directed bioprospecting has been criticised by numerous authors. Etkin's early critique of ethnopharmacology as generating lists of species that extract them from their cultural contexts has been reiterated more recently [14, 36]. In the bioprospecting process, the subsequent extraction of active metabolites can then diminish indigenous knowledge, even where it is validated by laboratory science [14]. In either case, indigenous use of medicinal species is reduced to its chemical components in what has been called its "molecularisation", disregarding the wider cultural contexts of use and perceptions of efficacy [15, 16]. With regard to medicinal uses, there has been criticism of the poor description and development of therapeutic indications leading to biased data and poor outcomes [16]. Weiskopf illustrated that there is an assumption that traditional ecological knowledge can be "plugged" in to "academic ecological knowledge" unchanged and that there is an assumed category and explanatory overlap between both as is the case, he argues, in the validation process in medical bioprospecting [201]. Taking the current analysis of *C. spinarum*, a local diagnosis of malaria is assumed in some studies to equate to the BM category malaria or "typhoid" to typhoid [202]. The use of an emetic or a laxative might be assumed to be used for the same purposes as an emetic or laxative in BM which may not be the case [89]. Category overlap thus cannot be assumed but must be underpinned by qualitative research exploring cognition among local participants. A hierarchy of convergence was prevalent in early ethnobiology research on folk classification between local and scientific categories whereby ethnotaxa that fit into the scientific categories were given priority and ethnotaxa that did not converge were marginalised

#### Carissa spinarum *L.: A Case Study in Ethnobotany and Bioprospecting Research DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104665*

[199]. Such ethnotaxa could be names of plants, birds or of therapeutic indications in EM. One can interpret the analysis of *Buda* (Evil Eye) in Ethiopian studies in Section 3.2.2 in light of hierarchies of convergence. While it is included as a therapeutic indication, there is no examination of this ethnotaxon in any of the Ethiopian studies analysed here. The local importance of this category is clear, but why is it not explored? Is it thought to be self-explanatory as other therapeutic indications are? Is it being marginalised as described above, a desire to ignore that which did not fit? Is there a lack of anthropological expertise in a natural science focused research team? Is it beyond the scope of the research agenda? Is it due to secrecy among research participants as described in Australian research? Whatever the reason, the lack of exploration of *Buda* in these EM studies is a missed opportunity to document local understandings of health and healing and perhaps illuminate the wider use of *C. spinarum* and other species.

The detailed ethnography needed for a substantial emic perspective in ethnopharmacological research requires collaboration between the natural and social sciences. There are documented barriers to such collaboration which can militate against conducting ethnobiological research beyond Phase I. These include inadequate funding and time and a range of academic issues.

All ethnobiology research touches on material and symbolic aspects of interactions between humans and their environments and as such requires a multidisciplinary approach to research, but this is not common in practice [12, 14, 203, 204]. In the current analysis, some explicitly ethnobotanical studies have multidisciplinary teams however with some exceptions [81, 89], the team members belong to a natural science discipline [134, 205, 206]. D'Ambrosio [12] attributed this to the normal association of ethnobiology research with either anthropology or biology departments with few dedicated ethnobiology schools. He argued that the ethnobiology researcher, rather, takes the disciplinary approach of their primary discipline with either a natural science or a social science/humanities perspective, carrying through their disciplinary origins in their research questions. The natural sciences perspective is largely objective, quantitative and etic in its approach, while a social scientific outlook is more often subjective, qualitative and emic. The natural sciences perspective predominating in the Phase I character of *C. spinarum* studies analysed [12]. Significant roadblocks exist to cross-disciplinary collaboration including in ethnobiology. These barriers revolve around the interrelated aspects of status, funding, time and complexity. An analysis of research collaborations between social and natural sciences found that collaborative research has a lower academic status than natural sciences research [207]. Funding across disciplines is difficult as funding streams generally follow single disciplines [12, 208]. Added to this, it is argued that social science research is chronically underfunded [209]. Within ethnopharmacology, there is a demonstrable lack of funding for ethnographically directed research compared with that for laboratory-based screening for bioactive metabolites [210]. Where social science and humanities research is conducted in collaboration with natural sciences, the latter tends to be the dominant partner in such research. The social science element may be tagged on with no true commitment of time and funding necessary for the incorporation of the social science discipline into the project [209, 211]. Similarly, the time required for communication across disciplines, for creating relationships and mutual understandings among research team members and for integrating research findings is rarely considered in project timelines [209]. Frequently the social science elements of collaborative research are more difficult to translate into action rather than the faster, more reductive natural sciences research [209]. These limits on time and funding can hamper ethno-directed studies and result in poor outcomes in ethnopharmacological research [16].

#### *Medicinal Plants*

Collaboration with study communities is a central feature of progressive ethnobiological research, with community voices heard rather than interpreted by academics [181]. However, in this analysis, there is near-total anonymity of the research participants themselves. This is the norm in earlier phases of ethnobiological research as described in recent works [15, 212]. The collaborative approach suffers from some of the same barriers as cross-disciplinary collaborations including skills, funding, time constraints and academic norms. The marginalisation of social sciences in interdisciplinary collaborative research means that the social science skills needed for in-depth community collaboration may not be available. Likewise, the time and associated funding requirements may be lacking making it more difficult to establish the necessary relationships of trust. Academically, research design varies whereby the social sciences often have a flexible approach to research design [213]. Where ethnobiology studies originate in natural sciences departments, academic structures may not permit this fluidity nor the processual approach needed in collaborative work. Collaboration and co-authorship are integral to Phase IV and V research and is considered to be essential to the future of ethnobiology [198]. If ethno-directed bioprospecting is to be conducted within an ethical and collaborative framework, then these barriers need to be addressed. All of these elements - disciplinary silos, funding, status and timemilitate against the collaboration with communities and across disciplines necessary for high quality ethnobiological research that can capture the interpenetrative nature of the relationships of humans and their environments in an ethical manner.

Research design and methods used in ethnobiology may produce results which do not properly represent the relationships of people and plants. Shortcomings in quantitative studies, in choice of participants and questionnaire design, in use of common ethnobotanical methods and the interview itself, may each contribute to an ethnobiology that is not representative of the local voice. Quantitative analysis in ethnobiology has become a common component of ethnobiological research especially since the 1990's [214]. It can be a component of a progressive ethnobiology when used judiciously. However, its inclusion has also been critiqued by several authors. The indiscriminate use of statistical methods without a basis in theory or hypothesis is challenged, proposing a better fit of method with the research question [215]. The variability in the use and interpretation of statistics produces research that cannot be compared or synthesised across studies and geographies [32, 214]. In this analysis, the wide variation in sample sizes, the difference in formulae and terms used, different interpretations of use categories make comparisons and syntheses of data difficult or inaccurate. The varying application of statistical measures has led to the recommendation that primary data (URs) are reported to allow for comparison between studies and meta-analysis [32]. In health and medicine directed ethnobiology, there are pitfalls with statistical methods. The equation of the most popular species with the "best" could be misapplied since popularity may have more to do with ease of access or symbolic value than efficacy in BM terms [16]. The format of many ethnobiological studies which result in catalogues of plant knowledge does not necessarily translate into real-world plant use such that what is known is not necessarily what is used [204].

It has been argued at a more fundamental level, that study design including choice of participants and questionnaire design lead to more variability in results than the choices around statistical indices or the grouping of use categories [216]. Sampling bias may emerge when indigenous knowledge is not homogenously distributed across a community or region [217]. The recording and classification of ethnobotanical knowledge may focus mainly on practical utility of species and can ignore other elements of importance to local communities. Elements that may not be categories of interest in study protocols,

#### Carissa spinarum *L.: A Case Study in Ethnobotany and Bioprospecting Research DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104665*

such as the sacred or aesthetic, may be relevant to community members [218]. Common ethnobotanical methods may not be culturally appropriate in Australian aboriginal research and this necessitates the development of alternative culturally sensitive study designs [37, 57, 58]. The use of tools such as free-listing were found to produce variable outcomes, even within a single participant (in separate interviews), or relating to age or the presence of a third party at the interview [219]. Similarly, a Bolivian study found that even subtle changes in the use of methods of free-listing and semi-structured interviews can produce markedly different results [220]. The core method of the interview itself is a challenged process when the recorded portion, the verbal, is only a fraction of the whole communication. The interviewer changes the outcome of the interaction through their very presence and the questions they ask, bringing their own etic category biases and resulting in an inaccurate representation of indigenous knowledge [221].

As the discipline of Ethnobiology has progressed, the ethics of research has become increasingly central to its conduct. Vandebroek [204] has argued that the normal method of documenting traditional medicinal knowledge and subsequent laboratory research on pharmacological activities has limited if any health benefits for study communities. There are clear ethical implications to such research. There are increasing calls to develop action-focused research protocols, which ask questions that directly address public health problems and make ethnobiological research more relevant to study communities [14, 204]. Vandebroek [204] refers to ethnobiological research in Mali whereby research results were directly returned to the study community through a refinement of local knowledge on an anti-malarial traditional medicine and only secondarily directed towards the development of a phytopharmaceutical [222]. The area of researching traditional knowledge and genetic resources raises ethical issues including of intellectual property rights, benefit sharing and protection of biodiversity. However, in the *C. spinarum* documents, there is little stated attention to ethics. Where ethics is mentioned, it is usually perfunctory. It is true that the lack of discussion of ethics does not mean that the research was conducted unethically. Some journals may require evidence of ethical research conduct as a condition of publication such as the *Journal of Ethnopharmacology*, even though ethical issues are not discussed in the research paper as such. This may not be the case for all journals. Where ethical issues are discussed as in Australian research such as [61], there is a greater sense of the ethical conduct of the research. Likewise, benefit sharing and IPRs may be a component of some research permits. However, the mention or discussion of them within the research paper such as in those listed in Section 3.5 raises the reader's awareness of these essential aspects of ethical research which has a value in itself.
