Dear Editors of Plastics,

We are pleased to submit our perspective manuscript titled “ʻWhere have the sand turtles gone?’: A Moana Nui Orientation to Plastics Research” for consideration in Cambridge Prisms: Plastics.

Our perspective manuscript speaks to Plastics’ mission by exploring the deep entanglement of plastics, people, and nature. Focusing on Moana Nui (the Pacific), we show how pervasive plastic pollution not only threatens human and environmental health, but also disrupts relational systems of justice, rights, and reciprocity. By centering our discussion on the disappearance of the Peʻeone (sand turtles) rather than on the immediate impacts of plastic pollution, we illustrate how their loss signals deeper disruptions in the web of life. Our paper integrates the rich lessons from the Kumulipo, Hawaiʻi’s creation story, to propose a descendant-informed research approach that honors ancestral guidance and fosters right relations with Moana Nui.

Many environmental studies in Moana Nui remain disconnected from localized knowledge systems, often resulting in solutions that do not align with the specific challenges of these regions. Our manuscript aims to invite readers to rethink plastics research and environmental stewardship. We advocate for descendant-informed practices that weaves ancestral guidance into plastics research. This approach reframes “solution-seeking” by prioritizing place-based relationalities and intergenerational stewardship—which we believe aligns with the interdisciplinary perspective that Plastics seeks to showcase. We would greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope you find our work both suitable for and contributory to the global aims of Plastics.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere

This is a “must publish” for me (a rare enough event). Well-written, deeply meaningful, discursive, informative (especially on the cosmology and language fronts). And exciting -- to see the application of Indigenous wisdom in a paper published in a journal such as Cambridge Prisms: Plastics would be a real step forward on the path toward epistemological reconciliation, one seldom taken in most mainstream peer-reviewed journals. The authors use the narrative of a (self-corrected) scientific study offered a “loving critique” to introduce a wide-ranging discussion of the destructive impact of plastic pollution and extractivism informed by the wisdom of “Indigenous relationalities” derived from (perhaps 2,000) years of human evolution of the human inhabitants of Moana Nui (which is, brilliantly in my view, credited with authorship!). I don’t see any need for substantive revisions here, except perhaps to add some more context about the threat to sand/sea turtles from plastic (ingestion, entanglement) up front just to keep the reader who turns to the piece from their love of turtles engaged. And we might also have a bit more on what motivated the Delorme study in the first place (not just macroplastic in the sea but microplastic on/in the beach sand as an indicator of plastic in the ocean) clearly described near the opening of the article, which would help situate it. From the Delorme article (Note: the Delorme article cited as preprint is now out in Marine Pollution Bulletin so that citation should be updated):

“a better understanding of the quantity of plastic particles in the deeper layer of the sand column could be useful in assessing ocean plastic pollution and the effectiveness of upstream mitigation efforts, especially in zones which are predicted to receiving significant amount of the “legacy plastics”.”

I realize these might be viewed as distractions from the main points made in the article presently under review but i do think they would help readers more accustomed to conventional scientific papers settle in a bit quicker.

Overall, this article is in my view exactly the kind of work we need to see more of, written from a perspective that challenges but does not attempt to disqualify “western” science. And it‘’s a brilliant narrative device to land on a critique of the plastics treaty negotiation process; I can confirm the authors’ concerns about the abundance of industrial representation compared to the Indigenous rights holders who are fortunate if they are granted a side event or two. The need for descendant-informed scholarship has never been as obvious. I do hope Cambridge Prisms can publish this piece, but if not then I suspect there are several other journals that would be pleased to do so.

This paper advocates for what it calls a Descendant-Informed Approach to Research, a methodology that privileges Indigenous (and specifically Native Hawaiian) ways of knowing and doing. The narrative is premised on a pivotal reflexive moment for the second co-author, a non-Indigenous settler who noticed that Western-Science-as-usual during a shoreline plastic study was (potentially?) extractivist. By listening to the third author, who is Indigenous, the second author became oriented to what the paper calls Descendant-Informed Research or Moana Nui Orientated research, an Indigenous and/or decolonial research methodology based on listening to co-author Kimenoa Kane and learning that there are many relations in the world/Creation. In the final section, the authors criticize the approach that the Global Plastics Treaty is taking because it does not foreground Indigenous rights.

Reviewer positionality: I’m an Indigenous researcher specializing in contaminants research using Indigenous, community-based, and collaborative methodologies. I am not from Hawai’i. I am dedicated to furthering Indigenous research methodologies, particularly as they relate to relational ethics and meaningful findings for community.

Overall, I am an advocate for Indigenous-specific methodologies that, in this case, reflect Hawai’i, Moana Nui, ‘Ōlelo Hawaiʻi, and/or Kānaka ʻŌiwi rather than pan-Indigenous approaches in general. The use of original languages is a significant part of methodological specificity, and I appreciate academic papers foregrounding Native languages in a way that allows English to become less dominant in the narrative.

Currently, several barriers exist to achieving what I perceive as the goal of the piece: articulating an Indigenous research methodology characterized by being “Descendant-Informed.”

I’ve outlined the barriers in order of importance, starting with things that must be addressed before that goal is reached, and secondly, outlining things that would simply support that goal. However, if I were an organizational editor for the authors rather than merely a reviewer, my recommendation would be to reframe the article with a different goal, as a true perspective piece, rather than as the theorization of a methodology. With edits, this piece can likely stand on its own as a narrative about a settler plastics researcher coming to an understanding about science and colonialism with the help of some Indigenous teachers and/or collaborators. I think most of the issues with the piece come from an overreach, and the main writer(s) are running up against established conversations, norms, expectations, and even ethics they aren’t fluent in. I think stripping things out and clarifying voice would be the strongest, most timely route to editing, and would either address the barriers below or make them irrelevant.

Barriers to articulating a Descendant-Informed Approach to Research

1. Clarification and specificity around the method: As a reader, if I were asked what a Descendant-Informed Approach to Research was, I would say that it involves listening to Indigenous people about environmental relationships, and that it is particularly (exclusively?) suited to settlers who don’t already know these things. If that is incorrect, that needs to be clarified (there was an earlier moment in the text where it looked like “descendant” referred to all humans, including white settlers, but then by page 6 it was not). If that is correct, then there is an issue of framing an Indigenous or decolonial methodology that is for non-Indigenous people (see Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies, Andersen and Walter’s Indigenous Statistics, Tuck and Yang’s “Decolonization is not a Metaphor”).

2. If (and only if) the authors are dedicated to theorizing a Descendant-Informed Approach to Research as an Indigenous, decolonial, or anti-colonial method (all of which are different), the following areas need clarification:

⁃ Conflation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and of different Indigenous people. If this is a place-based method or comes from specific Hawaiian relations, the claim that “We are all in the same canoe” has to be amended, and the role of each type of author/reader needs to be clarified. Indigenous people have written extensively on conflating Indigenous and non-Indigenous people when it comes to responsibilities and coalitions (e.g. Liboiron and “universal we”, Tuck and Yang’s “Settler moves to innocence,” and Jones with Jenkins with “the indigene-colonizer hyphen”—basically, lots of folks saying “don’t conflate, even if you love each other and share goals”). At the moment, Indigenous and non-indigenous people are conflated to an extent that I would call unethical—that is, that white settlers (stakeholders, guests) are given the same status, access, and relations as Indigenous Peoples (rightsholders, hosts) in what appears to be an Indigenous methodology.

⁃ What is the method/ology? How does it work? What does it look like? It is not entirely clear if it is a methodology (approach) or method (tool). In either case, the method or methodology needs to be clarified so that readers can identify how the method/ology introduced in the first half of the text is being used to get the results in the second half of the text, and how they would use or adapt the methodology in their own work (including how to identify if it is appropriate to use, and then how they would go about it if so). At the moment, the way a Descendant-Informed Approach to Research appears to work is that white settlers show humility and listen to Indigenous people, which causes them to realize their assumptions. This appears to make it a method for researcher reflexivity for people who are not already in community or do not have access to or familiarity with Indigenous cosmologies. When that method is used in plastics research, the change is: the digging stops, and there are critiques of the Global Plastics Treaty. But how would research start again in a good way? Or is it a method for stopping (called a method of refusal in Indigenous research methodology literature)? Note that it is not clear to me how the digging method works in the description of the method.

⁃ Specifics of the method/ology in terms of “decedents”: The title refers to a Moana Nui approach to research, but the text refers to descendant-based research. These are not the same thing. If the authors believe there is overlap, particularly within a Hawaiian cosmology, it has to be explained *and maintained* throughout the paper. While defendants can be human or not in some cosmologies, it looks like there are two very different meanings to each. The narrative also appears to imply that defendants are just those who have ancestors (pp 6-7), but that’s an unusually linear and responsibility-free relationship for any Indigenous cosmologies I’m familiar with. If Hawaiian cosmologies support a linear relationship (everyone is a descendant, everyone has ancestors in the same way), this has to be explained. At the start of the paper, it looks like a Moana Nui approach to research is being framed based on translated texts and chants that talk about the land and water. By the middle/end of the paper, the ocean is absent, and the descendant appears to refer to a single man. On page 6, the authors write, “We use the term ‘descendant’, rather than Moana Nui or “Indigenous”, to make this work available to all people across the globe.” This would mean the method is not place-based, which is stated on pp 4. It would also work against foundational theories of Indigenous methodologies like those of Linda Smith (“Decolonizing Methodologies”) that argue against a pan-Indigenous way of being. Clarification is required throughout. In short, a lot of terms and ideas that are different are used interchangeably, and this needs to be clarified either by reducing the promiscuity of the term, or by explaining how different elements are related.

The theorization of a methodology (ie, an approach to research) is a heavy lift for a perspectives piece. I don’t think it’s an inherent misfit, but the authors may choose to scale back the argument to be about a pivotal moment of realization (a shift in perspective) rather than a decolonial methodology. In that case, some of the above would have to be addressed if some of the core language remains (like decolonial, decedent, cosmology), but many issues would also become less relevant. The two barriers below would remain.

1. Author’s voice and positionality:

⁃ The positionality statement/introduction to the authors needs to move up to the first page of the piece. Not only is this protocol, but it was truly confusing to read the first 6 or 7 pages when the authors spoke as “we” but there were obviously very different positions and frameworks in play. I deeply value multi-vocal collaborative writing, but as part of that craft the voices must be distinct when they are not the same positionality. For example, sometimes “we” was the authors and sometimes “we” were Indigenous people, and they were not differentiated, which is confusing but more importantly, unethical. At other times, the text was clearly written in the third person about two of the co-authors, where first-person narratives would have been more appropriate (less confusing, better information, truer positionality, more ethical). There are some great examples of a mixed group of authors writing multifocal texts, including where some co-authors do not put pen to the page (or keyboards to the document) e.g. Jones with Jenkins (2008), Burgess et al. (2020).

⁃ Related to this, there is a notable skew in the narrative, where the main case study focuses on the experiences of a white researcher becoming reflexive, and not about Indigenous researchers being teachers or collaborators or knowledge holders. This isn’t an inherently bad narrative, but it needs to be framed with the proper voice and accountabilities.

⁃ This piece needs the equivalent of a CREDIT statement— who did what in the piece. This is part of accountability and protocol, which is important in general but crucial for the ethics of a group that is talking about Indigenous cosmologies— even if everyone was Indigenous (Elders vs students vs parents have different accountabilities and roles in knowledge sharing instance), which is not the case here and makes it even more important (ie, ethical).

1. Organization and internal coherence:

⁃ At the moment, there are three very distinct portions of the paper that could be their own papers: the introduction, which includes considerable Native language and translation; the case study of a white researcher realizing they are a guest on Indigenous land (my paraphrase); and a critique of the Global Plastics Treaty. While perspective pieces aren’t research articles, the three parts should be linked in concrete, specific and/or clear ways. Given that the main argument of the piece appears to be a call for a research method, a logical connection would be: 1) an introduction to a cosmology that positions descendant, 2) a demonstration of how that works, with specific ties back to the cosmology, and 3) what happens when you apply that approach to science or scientific endeavours. The last section on the Treaty is the least connected.

⁃

Support for articulating a Descendant-Informed Approach to Research

1. Familiarity or fluency in Indigenous methodologies and conversations: The reference list has an appropriate number of Indigenous authors for a piece like this, but the core arguments and conversations from those referenced articles aren’t in strong evidence. For instance, Tina Ngata is cited and quoted multiple times about relationally, but one of Ngata’s core arguments in her body of work is that scientists should “get out of the way” of Indigenous scientists and communities and strongly advocates against Indigenous knowledge as a public good that is available for settler use, including in collaborative dialogue. I love Ngata’s work, but it reads as a misfit for what the authors are arguing for here. Similarly, while the authors propose an Indigenous methodology, they do not seem to have read the cannon on Indigenous methodologies (noted above in the section on positionality and on clarification of the method).

The authors may want to look into some of their citations that have been criticized by Indigenous scholars ethics violations.

Citations

Burgess, H., D. Cormack, and P. Reid. 2021. ‘Calling Forth Our Pasts, Citing Our Futures: An Envisioning of a Kaupapa Māori Citational Practice’. MAI Journal. A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship 10(1):57–67.

Jones, Alison, and Kuni Jenkins. 2008. ‘Rethinking Collaboration: Working the Indigene-Colonizer Hyphen’. Pp. 471–86 in Handbook of critical indigenous methodologies, edited by K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, and L. T. Smith. Thousand Oaks,  CA,  US: SAGE.

Liboiron, Max, and Josh Lepawksy. 2022. ‘There’s No Such Thing as We: A Theory of Difference’. Pp. 97–124 in Discard Studies: Wasting, Systems, and Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. ‘Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor’. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1).

Review: Stone et al, “Where have the sand turtles gone?”: A Moana Nui Orientation to Plastics Research

Summary: In this manuscript, the authors seek to illustrate their descendent-informed methodology through the example of Delorme and Kāne at Hunaniho. In addition, the authors have endeavored to contextualize their work within a political framework that spans Moana Nui, discard studies, and cosmogonic origins in the Kumulipo. This is too much to cover in a single manuscript and I recommend the authors instead focus on clarifying the descendant methodology using the Delorme and Kāne interaction as an example.

Major issues:

• The voice and positionality of the authors in the manuscript is inconsistent throughout the piece lending confusion to the strength of the theoretical arguments and weakening the manuscript overall. The authors are Native Hawaiian (Stone, Kāne), malihini, kamaʻāina (Chang), and from Oceania (Varea). Clear positionality must be established at the beginning of the manuscript explaining who the authors are and where they are from.

o First, one of the authors is Moana Nui, yet the authors are explicitly take a Hawaiʻi-based perspective. Including a place as a author is not inappropriate as an authors, but not all peoples in Oceania/the Pacific recognize Moana Nui as a name for this space - it is primarily a name that those who live in the areas named Polynesia utilize. Thus the name Moana Nui is limiting rather than inclusive. Moreover, the authors reference other Oceania scholars sparingly (e.g. Hauʻofa, Ngata, Varea). These authors are only from the ethnographic care of Polynesia, which raises questions about the having strong grounding in a broad Oceania-based perspective. Rather than claiming a Moana Nui perspective, which isnʻt necessary for this manuscript, the authors could more strongly root their position in Hawaiʻi. For instance, focusing the piece more rigorously in the work of other Native Hawaiian scholars. In addition, instead of Moana Nui, perhaps a more appropriate author might be Hawaiʻi nei or Hūnāniho which is a the site of transformation for the authors.

o Second, in asserting a Moana Nui epistemic grounding but priveleging ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, the authors appear to conflate Hawaiʻi life ways with Moana Nui life ways, which is reductive and inaccurate. Do all the authors ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi? Terms and cultural concepts from other Moana Nui cultures were not mentioned in the manuscript. As for cosmogonic origin stories, only the Kumulipo was used as a foundation. Given that the site Delormeʻs research was exclusively Hūnāniho, it makes sense that koʻihonua from Hawaiʻi were used as a foundation, but this further supports a narrowing from Moana Nui to a Hawaiʻi-focused epistemology.

o Finally, at various times, the authors switch narrative voice, writing in first person (“us” and “we”) as well as third person, referring to “Delorme” and “Kāne”. It is difficult for the audience to understand whose perspective we are meant to see. The authors need to decide on a consistent perspective and write the text as a unified collective. Who is the “we”? who is the “us”? For example in line 49: “our role as malihini” - the voice is confusing as the first author is ostensibly kanaka as are other authors. why are kanaka authors writing as non-native folks?

• Use of ʻike Hawaiʻi and its sources – specifically the Kumulipo - should be justified within an ʻōiwi/kanaka maoli context and Hawaiʻi life ways.

o First, the Kumulipo version that is cited as the foundation for the authorʻs methodology is a translation by a haole ethnographer (Beckwith). In Decolonization is not a metaphor, Tuck and Yang write that “To fully enact an ethic of incommensurability means relinquishing settler futurity, abandoning the hope that settlers may one day be commensurable to Native peoples.” Why did the authors choose to use the Beckwith translation instead of translations by kanaka (e.g. Liliʻuokalani, Kalākaua, or the Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation)? Given increased resurgence of ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, it is unnecessary to use a non-ōiwi source as the translation for such a foundational cultural work. Another option is that, while potentially daunting, if the authors deem it necessary to include a section of the fourth wā of the Kumulipo, they should translate lines 380 – 480 themselves. For example, in Kumulipo 380: hoʻokaha doesnʻt not mean to creep up to the land, it means to seize what is anotherʻs (Andrews, 1865). Thus the following Kumulipo lines could be translated as 380 The sea seizes the land, 381: dragging backward, dragging forth. What other errors has Beckwith made that may alter the authorsʻ interpretation of this koʻihonua? Without knowing who amongst the authors can ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, the importance of relying on ʻōiwi translations is even more important to transmit knowledge from a Hawaiʻi lens.

o Second, the authors invocation of the Kumulipo as Original Instructions (lines 10, 29, 44) is problematic because Original Instructions are a set of teachings shared by the original peoples of the Great Lakes region (Anishnabewaki)of Turtle Island (Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass). It is inappropriate to translate the Kumulipo as Original Instructions because these concepts are incommensurable (see above). This also means that as kanaka ʻōiwi, our concepts are not commensurable to other Native peoples and vice versa. What are the authors’ thoughts around kanaka Hawaiʻi ascribing to original instructions? It feels like borrowing pan-Indigenous concepts without establishing whether this is part of Hawaiʻi life ways. Significant caution should be exercised in adopting pan-Indigenous logics for ʻike Hawaiʻi.

o Finally, the authors assert that the Kumulipo “expresses the interrelationships of all living things” (line 34) which isnʻt exactly accurate. Though humans are mentioned, in a very specific lineage or geneology of aliʻi are mentioned, specifically KalaninuiĪamamao. Thus the Kumulipo is very much an exclusive proof of legitimacy for those who govern. Itʻs not clear whether makaʻāinana would have had common knowledge of the Kumulipo and itʻs function as a legitimizer of lineage cannot be separated from the other knowledge in the first 8 wā. It should also be noted that not all mea ola Hawaiʻi are included in the Kumulipo.

• Descendant-informed research as a methodology is currently poorly articulated. A methodology is system of procedures and rules or criteria that guide a research approach. In this manuscript, there is no definition and no citation as a methodology. The main issue is that the authors talk about their methodology without first explaining what it is. Are the authors describing a brand-new methodology there? how is this a unique approach distinct from other ʻōiwi research methodologies (e.g. Kahalauʻs maʻawe pono, Goodyear-Kaʻopuaʻs ropes of resistance, Kanakaʻole Kanaheleʻs Papakū Makawalu). The author team should expand more directly and explicitly about this methodology.

From what I gleaned, components of descendent-informed research include:

o Asking who the plastic research was disturbing to ascertain relationships and continuity, centering kinship relationships vs. the objective position of plastic.

o Listening to the descendants of the places: where is the science situated. In line 17 the authors refer to “ancestrally guided scientific practices”. It is not clear what that means. Whose ancestors?

o Prioritize the terms, lifeways and values systems of places we inhabit. Are there other koʻihonua, moʻolelo, kaʻao or mele specific to Hūnāniho or the Koʻolaupoko moku that could be included here? The Kumulipo applies broadly to ko Hawaiʻi pae ʻāina and less specifically to Hūnāniho.

What other parts are missing? The writing in these sections would benefit from increased clarity. For example, in line 48 the authors state that “good science should be oppositional and propositional” What does this mean? What is this referring to? There should be more citations to support this line of argumentation. What specific scientific paradigms does descendant-informed scholarship oppose?

• In general, there need to be more citations.

o Web-based citations of hua ʻōlelo are insufficient – specific linkage to which Hawaiian language dictionary is being referenced should be made.

o Citation 55 is a misattribution, while this paper does speak about the triple Piko concept, it originates from Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell (see https://www.inmotionmagazine.com/kekuninf.html or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2FmbdusZko). It would be most approrpiate to honor the moʻokūauhau of this manaʻo by citing Dr. Blaisdell instead.

• Again, I want to emphasize that it would be sufficient for this paper to clearly articulate the descendent-informed methodology. Use as a case study/example how a western scientific researcherʻs study design was influenced andn transformed by working with community members. It would be even more insightful to expand on what were the outcomes of the study? How did this interaction change future plastics research? Political discourse on plastic need not be overly emphasized in this manuscript. Perhaps it could be moved to the end as a reflective perspective to connect the work outward.

Minor issues

• Abstract:

o why is Web of Life capitalized? how is it a Hawaiʻi concept?

o one can also refer to one hānau - sands of our birth

• line 43: what does “from outside period” mean?

• Italicize Linneaan genus + species names

• There are inconsistences throughout the manuscript when the authors refer to the Kumulipo: sometimes “the Kumulipo” and sometimes “ke Kumulipo”. All instances should be of the same convention

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. The reviewers unanimously recognize the manuscript’s innovative contribution, particularly its integration of Indigenous epistemologies into plastics research. However, while one reviewer recommends publication with minor adjustments, the others identify significant issues that must be addressed to clarify the manuscript’s theoretical framing, positionality, and methodological coherence. In light of these, we invite you to submit a major revision that responds fully to the reviewers’ detailed and constructive feedback. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Please also consider the word count limitation.

No accompanying comment.

No accompanying comment.

Article has been improved by the authors and can be published at this point

The authors appear to have made the necessary revisions in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions. This paper can be considered for publication.

No accompanying comment.