This paper discusses participatory research in the Andes and presents a case study in Cotacachi, Ecuador, where sustainability scientists and indigenous people seek common ground in their respective but drastically di...This paper discusses participatory research in the Andes and presents a case study in Cotacachi, Ecuador, where sustainability scientists and indigenous people seek common ground in their respective but drastically different research and social agendas. Participatory research based on Andean experiences pre-dated and inspired much of the later international movement in agriculture, health, and conservation. Andean communities have a long history in demanding that outsiders address the needs of the community as a condition for carrying out scientific or applied activities. What an Andean community, however, sees as relevant may or may not be within the rubric of ‘participatory research’ as it is practiced throughout much of the world. In fact, overzealous participatory researchers are just as bothersome as their predecessors bearing long questionnaires. More important to Andean people is an equitable relationship with researchers and developers in which exchanges of value are made. A distinction between ‘enriching’ and ‘extractive’ research is drawn. In the case of the SANREM project in Cotacachi, Ecuador, scientists carried out enriching research activities of interest to local people as a wayto generate social capital for conducting basic research which does not have an obvious, immediate local benefit. The requested research did not have a conventional participatory methodology but provided valuable products (educational opportunity, germplasm, community visualization tools, and information) to the indigenous community in exchange for time and resources to conduct research on more basic natural resource questions. We argue that in the Andean context the key to reconciling the needs of scientists and of local needs is seeking new forms of equitable collaboration which reach beyond the present and now somewhat tired discourse of ‘participation’.展开更多
A protocol for quantum private comparison of equality(QPCE) is proposed based on five-particle cluster state with the help of a semi-honest third party(TP). In our protocol, TP is allowed to misbehave on its own but c...A protocol for quantum private comparison of equality(QPCE) is proposed based on five-particle cluster state with the help of a semi-honest third party(TP). In our protocol, TP is allowed to misbehave on its own but can not conspire with either of two parties. Compared with most two-user QPCE protocols, our protocol not only can compare two groups of private information(each group has two users) in one execution, but also compare just two private information. Compared with the multi-user QPCE protocol proposed, our protocol is safer with more reasonable assumptions of TP. The qubit efficiency is computed and analyzed. Our protocol can also be generalized to the case of 2N participants with one TP. The 2N-participant protocol can compare two groups(each group has N private information)in one execution or just N private information.展开更多
文摘This paper discusses participatory research in the Andes and presents a case study in Cotacachi, Ecuador, where sustainability scientists and indigenous people seek common ground in their respective but drastically different research and social agendas. Participatory research based on Andean experiences pre-dated and inspired much of the later international movement in agriculture, health, and conservation. Andean communities have a long history in demanding that outsiders address the needs of the community as a condition for carrying out scientific or applied activities. What an Andean community, however, sees as relevant may or may not be within the rubric of ‘participatory research’ as it is practiced throughout much of the world. In fact, overzealous participatory researchers are just as bothersome as their predecessors bearing long questionnaires. More important to Andean people is an equitable relationship with researchers and developers in which exchanges of value are made. A distinction between ‘enriching’ and ‘extractive’ research is drawn. In the case of the SANREM project in Cotacachi, Ecuador, scientists carried out enriching research activities of interest to local people as a wayto generate social capital for conducting basic research which does not have an obvious, immediate local benefit. The requested research did not have a conventional participatory methodology but provided valuable products (educational opportunity, germplasm, community visualization tools, and information) to the indigenous community in exchange for time and resources to conduct research on more basic natural resource questions. We argue that in the Andean context the key to reconciling the needs of scientists and of local needs is seeking new forms of equitable collaboration which reach beyond the present and now somewhat tired discourse of ‘participation’.
基金Supported by NSFC under Grant Nos.61402058,61572086the Fund for Middle and Young Academic Leaders of CUIT under Grant No.J201511+2 种基金the Science and Technology Support Project of Sichuan Province of China under Grant No.2013GZX0137the Fund for Young Persons Project of Sichuan Province of China under Grant No.12ZB017the Foundation of Cyberspace Security Key Laboratory of Sichuan Higher Education Institutions under Grant No.szjj2014-074
文摘A protocol for quantum private comparison of equality(QPCE) is proposed based on five-particle cluster state with the help of a semi-honest third party(TP). In our protocol, TP is allowed to misbehave on its own but can not conspire with either of two parties. Compared with most two-user QPCE protocols, our protocol not only can compare two groups of private information(each group has two users) in one execution, but also compare just two private information. Compared with the multi-user QPCE protocol proposed, our protocol is safer with more reasonable assumptions of TP. The qubit efficiency is computed and analyzed. Our protocol can also be generalized to the case of 2N participants with one TP. The 2N-participant protocol can compare two groups(each group has N private information)in one execution or just N private information.
