This section provides a brief background on ways research is evolving in Canada to be inclusive of, and responsible to, Indigenous voice, knowledge, and people. You will also see how recent institutional change processes are shaping how post-secondary institutions can support and lead changes in research processes.

Indigenous cultures, knowledge systems, and worldviews grew out of relationships with the land, from observation of cycles and patterns on the land, in the skies, and on the water to learning the behaviour of animals and recognizing how humans interact and build experiences. Observation and experimentation enabled a set of principles and practices that manifest as stories, laws, protocols, and approved practices, which provide a way to coexist in holistic and sustainable ways. As Gregory Cajete, a Tewa scholar, stated at a 2015 Banff Centre event, “The focus of native science … [is] finding ways to resonate with the natural world and the natural order.” These processes exist today in spite of contact and colonial legacies.

As a country, we have much to learn from Indigenous Peoples. However, the colonial mindset has viewed Indigenous Peoples as “the other,” as almost-humans with knowledge and physical resources to be extracted and used to build a new world. This mindset allowed settler researchers to research Indigenous Peoples without recognition of responsibility, conditions imposed on Indigenous Peoples by colonization. The marginalization of Canada’s Indigenous population was systematic and deliberate, resulting in catastrophic health conditions for people living on reserves across Canada (Daschuk, 2013). Poor health conditions, systemic assimilation, and general racism gave rise to new policies to remove Indigenous children from reserves for their education in residential schools. The poor health conditions on reserves coupled with poor educational experiences in the residential school system led to “new ‘unnatural’ pathologies, such as AIDS, diabetes, and suicide emerging under physical and social constraints experienced by Aboriginal communities today” (Daschuk, 2013, p. 186). Deficit-based research into these pathologies often involved unethical research practices on Indigenous peoples’ bodies, their cultures, and their knowledge. These research practices allowed such atrocities as:

• Nutritional experiments on children in residential schools during the 1940s and 1950s (Mosby, 2013)
• Appropriation of cultural objects as a form of “collecting” artifacts (Benson, 2013)
• Genetic material acquisition and use without informed consent (Wichar, 2004)

While research on Indigenous Peoples has occurred since contact, recent geopolitical and societal shifts have influenced researchers and research disciplines to better consider how to work with and for Indigenous Peoples. Diligent, groundbreaking Indigenous scholars such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Sean Wilson, Margaret Kovach, and Kathy Absolon have shared perspectives, knowledge, and Indigenous research pathways. Furthermore, since the 1970s, Indigenous leaders have demanded rights and access to responsible and collaborative research. Research protocols and guidelines began to shift in the 1990s in Canada and across the globe. Many protocols developed to date are within the health field and were steered by Indigenous organizations such as the National Aboriginal Health Organization (ceased operations in 2012) and the First Nations Information Governance Centre. Other protocols developed relate to environmental sciences and biosecurity research – organizations such as the Inuit Knowledge Centre ensure research in Nunavut is co-developed, led, and supported by Inuit communities.

The Indigenous Research Protocols, Policies, and Declarations Timeline provides a snapshot of key pieces of policy and legislation that have shifted ethical research practice with Indigenous Peoples.

Note: If you are not using the online version of this guide, you can find the timeline in Appendix A: Indigenous Research Protocols, Policies, and Declarations Timeline

Interconnected, relational, and intersected are ways to describe an Indigenous research approach. These ways of knowing, being, and doing describe a non-linear approach to the research process as ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology and are “inseparable and blend from one into the next” (Wilson, 2008, p. 70).

In a Western research approach, action and participatory research come forward as critical research approaches that involve the participant, yet the researcher maintains control of the depth and type of interaction and manages data gathering and analysis.

In an Indigenous research approach, participants guide and embody the research process and results. Ownership, control, access, and protection of the data is held by the community, not the researcher. The researcher is part of the process of research in that they hold the ceremony or act of research. They intersect between the academy or funder and the community, and they ensure the relationships built in the research process continue past the project. This responsibility is ongoing, as many researchers who practice Indigenous research are part of the community or allies of the Indigenous community. As Indigenous voice gains prominence in research, these approaches are expanding the ways research can be held as a transformative change process. However, Indigenous voice and knowledge in research has required a few other processes to shift practice.

Since “The Green Report” was published in 1990 (British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education Department, 1990), public post-secondary institutions in B.C. have tried to provide Indigenous space and voice and increase Indigenous learner success. The recommendations in the report have shaped current educational policy and created a foundation for dialogue and processes to emerge. These processes or approaches are Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation, and each holds various levels of importance in institutions due to relationships and partnerships with First Nations and Métis educational authorities and communities. These processes directly impact, inform, and guide how research can become a reciprocal and relational process. There has also been an increase in Indigenous graduates with bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Many of these graduates give back by either leading community-based research, becoming instructors in post-secondary institutions, or taking on educational leadership roles in institutions. Their ability to build a bridge between Indigenous communities and public post-secondary institutions makes them leading voices that support and guide Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation.

Indigenization

Indigenization involves the meaningful inclusion of Indigenous voice and perspective at various levels of the institution and provides space for Indigenous pedagogy to occur in the classroom. Indigenization is strengths based and acknowledges that both Indigenous and Western knowledge and perspectives are valid, authentic, and complementary. Indigenization works in a collaborative environment and acknowledges that there can be multiple approaches to support learner success. Institutions are exploring how to bring Indigenous epistemologies and pedagogies into practice to benefit all learners, not only Indigenous learners. Indigenization occurs in phases, best described by David Newhouse, an Onondaga scholar, at a 2015 SFU-UBC Graduate Student Symposium as follows:

• Being physically represented (e.g., artwork, signage, culturally relevant spaces)
• Bringing Indigenous culture into institutions and ensuring representation (e.g., welcoming and graduation ceremonies, cultural events, advisories, strategic plans, educational partnerships)
• Building a space for Indigenous knowledge to be part of the institution (e.g., territorial acknowledgements, educational plans, culturally relevant curricula and pedagogical practice, co-delivery of programs and services in First Nations communities and urban Indigenous organizations)

Decolonization

Decolonization recognizes the power imbalances and the harm of normalizing Western knowledge in education as the only way of knowing and seeing all other knowledge systems and practices as lesser and invalid. Decolonizing practice is social-justice focused and strives to create places of truth-telling, revealing places of discomfort and challenging the status quo (Corntassel, 2011; Tuck & Yang, 2012). It does not mean we place ourselves into binary positions, but instead that we create spaces where similarities and differences can be explored and understood (Battiste, 2005). Decolonizing practice is not only for non-Indigenous researchers and educators to identify and challenge racist and unjust process and practice; it also requires vigilance from Indigenous communities to ensure Indigenous knowledge and practice are recognized, validated, and protected.

Reconciliation

This process has gained prominence due to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s work to redress the legacy of residential schools. The 94 Calls to Action [PDF]. provide specific recommendations on ways to transform and change education and research; many post-secondary institutions are currently creating ways to address these calls to action. Reconciliation requires both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to identify, recognize, acknowledge, and accept their respective responsibilities to change relationships, build common understanding, and make genuine, long-lasting change to Canadian society.

In this section, you have briefly examined the history of policies and processes that shape and support Indigenous voice and knowledge in post-secondary institutions. You have also reviewed the Research Protocols, Policies, and Declarations Timeline showing how Indigenous Peoples have created a voice in research at local, national, and international levels. The following activities are an opportunity for you to explore your research process and how it is affected and influenced by Indigenous perspectives and protocols.

For this section, you will explore how Indigenizing research is interconnected and relational. You will consider current knowledge-protection issues and recognize the steps to take when including Indigenous language in your research. You will also use an interconnected and intersected model and process called SPECIALTYPATHLIST.

When accessing Indigenous knowledge for research in the arts, cultural practices, scientific knowledge, kinship and social systems, ceremonial practices, and other forms of oral Indigenous knowledge, it is important to review and understand copyright and intellectual property laws (both domestic and international). This is to ensure the intellectual property and copyright of Indigenous knowledge keepers is protected and to identify any collective community rights, as defined by the Indigenous community. For instance, many research projects include a project logo – an image or illustration to represent the spirit and intent of the research. Some researchers use existing images, while others commission specific designs. If the researcher is using Indigenous artwork, then copyright and intellectual property rights have to be affirmed prior to publishing the research.

In the Western academic tradition, copyright is used to protect written resources produced by a person (or team). However, such copyright laws are problematic for Indigenous cultures. Within many Indigenous knowledge systems, oral permission is required before accessing cultural materials or practices such as legends, stories, songs, designs, crests, photographs, audiovisual materials, and dances. These practices and materials are owned and transferred by specific individuals, families, or groups within their respective Nations. Permission to use them is contextual to the researcher’s relationship with the owners, the intent of the research, and how the practices or materials will be shared. Permission may be specific to a single use; if you are adjusting your research for a different context, then permission will need to be secured again.

Protocols that exist around the use of Indigenous resources are specific to place, people, and time; hence, there is no generic code of conduct when working with Indigenous Peoples. Each First Nations, Métis, and Inuit community will have principles, practices, systems, and processes that flow from their community’s respective laws and traditions. This does not mean that Indigenous knowledge systems and art cannot be used, but researchers need to seek permission and properly cite and situate the knowledge used in their research before using Indigenous knowledge systems and expressions. Learning about these protocols from the community you are working with will contribute to the content and context of the research partnership agreement. Researchers need to build connections with Indigenous communities and knowledge keepers to seek oral permission. This may be challenging at times, and it may take time, but it is the responsibility of all researchers. If you or your institution has not obtained permission, it is important to investigate and secure permission from relevant individuals, families, authorities, agencies, and organizations.

Researchers should review and understand domestic and international laws and declarations to ensure the copyright and intellectual property rights of Indigenous artists and knowledge keepers are protected, as well as any collective community rights defined by the Indigenous community.

There is currently no single source of information about Indigenous Peoples and copyright and intellectual property. There are, however, several resources that provide practical guidance and tools for researchers about traditional and contemporary arts in all disciplines: visual, music and song, dance, theatre, storytelling, and new media. In a 20-minute JCUCairns TEDx talk from 2016, Terri Janke, an Indigenous lawyer and activist from Australia, discusses the potential of collaboration. True Tracks: Create a Culture of Innovation with Indigenous Knowledge documents a way to acknowledge and respect Indigenous cultural expression and knowledge through collaboration, consent, attribution, and protection.

In British Columbia and across all of North America, Indigenous languages continue to be endangered – some critically endangered, meaning they may be lost within the next generation. As a result, many communities view language revitalization as a top priority in various planning and research processes.

Researchers who want to incorporate an Indigenous language into their project need to ensure they are guided by the Indigenous community that speaks the language. As language conveys Indigenous culture, the more a researcher knows and understands the language of the community, the better the chances of creating a trusting relationship with community members. It is helpful to know that different communities that speak the same language will have dialect differences. There can also be different writing systems (orthographies) that are used by each language family or group. In some cases, a language family or group may use one or two different orthographies; for example, among Kwaḱwala and Liḱwala speakers (the same language family), two systems are used. Many (but not all) Kwakwa̱ka̱ʼwakw communities use the U’mista orthography (an orthography created by the community) for Kwaḱwala learning resources; however, Liḱwala speakers use the International Phonetic Alphabet (an orthography created by Western linguists) when creating language learning resources. The First Peoples’ Cultural Council shares information about the diversity of Indigenous languages spoken across the province and highlights current language revitalization projects. The nuance of how a language is written and conveyed will be important in your research, especially if it is going to be shared with language keepers and teachers.

It is important to ensure a traditional language is used only with the direct involvement, permission, and guidance of the community. As referenced in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report, Indigenous languages belong to the communities and should be used only if those communities approve of their use. This addresses protocol around the use of an Indigenous language. It is also important to have a community’s involvement, because translation of research ideas from English to an Indigenous language is not always a straightforward matter of translating words and phrases, but rather a process of ensuring ideas and worldviews are reflected in the choice of words.

In terms of individual commitment, researchers should also consider seeking direction from a fluent speaker to learn an appropriate greeting and farewell. This will demonstrate their commitment to learning and respecting protocols and help to build a trusting relationship.

Using Indigenous cultural objects as metaphors (for example, a basket weaving or a totem pole) may seem like an effective way to visually relate a research idea, but it is important to first consult with the First Nations, Métis, or Inuit communities that hold the intellectual property rights – that is, the traditions from which you are creating a metaphor from – and seek guidance and permission to do so. Not seeking permission and guidance on the appropriate use of an Indigenous cultural object or practice is cultural appropriation. Misappropriation is a one-sided process in which one entity benefits from using another group’s intellectual and cultural property without that group’s permission or giving something in return.

To avoid misappropriation, it is important to connect with the First Nations, Métis, or Inuit community from which the metaphor originates, as the cultural reference may be considered sacred to that community, or it may be owned by specific families and not appropriate for use as a research metaphor. It is also important to ensure the metaphor is used correctly. Inaccurate information about many Indigenous metaphors has developed over time among non-Indigenous people. For example, the totem pole has frequently been used as a metaphor for order, with the bottom referencing a less important concept, but this is wrong. Many First Nations communities that have created totem poles for countless generations consider the bottom figure as important as all other figures, because it is regarded as the figure that holds all of the others up.

The Medicine Wheel is another metaphor that is often used inaccurately. There is a tendency to assume that there is only one model for the Medicine Wheel, when in fact there are many models. Medicine Wheels may have different colours, which may be seen in a different sequence around the circle, and different animals may also be represented on different Medicine Wheels. Relevance and place are important to consider when using this research metaphor. If you use a Medicine Wheel that represents Dakota beliefs in a Cree community research project, you are not respecting the Cree community, as the colours and meaning of each realm are different. To ensure you are using a metaphor that represents the beliefs of the Indigenous community you are working with, approach people who belong to the community and ask them to direct you to the community’s cultural stewards, who can guide you on the appropriate use of images and meanings.

Incorrectly using a metaphor has the potential of negatively impacting the research project and the relationship with community. Think Before You Appropriate: Things to Know and Questions to Ask in Order to Avoid Misappropriating Indigenous Cultures [PDF] is a guide created through Simon Fraser University’s multi-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) project, Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project, that explores responsible and ethical collaborations.

Post-secondary Indigenous educators Dianne Biin (Tsilhqot’in) and Lou-ann Neel (Kwakwa̱ka̱ʼwakw) designed the community planning tool SPECIALTYPATHLIST during their years as Indigenous community developers and researchers to help with developing programs, projects, policies, and events. This checklist focuses on interconnections and builds project and approach relevancy by helping researchers consider all aspects that may be affected by a project.

SPECIALTYPATHLIST was developed over decades of working in and with First Nations communities, agencies, and organizations across British Columbia. It supports Indigenous community development, arts revitalization, and residential school healing through cultural practice. This planning tool is more in-depth and relational than a business STEEP analysis (social, technological, economical, environmental, and political) or an appreciative inquiry SOAR approach (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results). This tool enables Indigenous voice to be involved in the research design, data gathering, and dissemination of results.

SPECIALTYPATHLIST is an acronym for the following aspects a researcher should consider when undertaking a research project within an Indigenous community:

• Social
• Political/Physical/Policy/Partnerships/Protocol
• Economic/Emotional/Educational/Elder
• Cultural/Community/Children
• Intellectual
• Artistic/Academic/Administrative
• Linguistic/Language
• Traditions/Traditional
• Youth
• Philosophical/Principles/Parental
• Accountability/Accessibility
• Technology/Technological
• Heritage/Health/Holistic/Honour
• Legislative/Legal
• Integrity/Infant
• Spiritual
• Theory/Theoretical

The following diagrams demonstrate how to use this planning tool to initiate dialogue with various members of a community and acknowledge how land and place affect the design and delivery of a project. In Figure 2.2, consultations and conversations are not hierarchical but instead organic in the process of determining the depth and relevance of a project. Figure 2.3 shows the benefits and impacts of a project beyond the initial scope of the project. While these categories change in importance, they provide a basis for ways to solidify your research idea and intention.

Note: If you are not using the online version of this guide, you can find the annotated diagrams information (Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3) in Appendix B.

Figure 2.2: Consultations and conversations using SPECIALTYPATHLIST within a community to determine project parameters and influences. This diagram can be viewed in Appendix B.

Figure 2.3: Using SPECIALTYPATHLIST as a Dialogue Tool with Community Authorities. This diagram can be viewed in Appendix B.

SPECIALTYPATHLIST has many benefits, including:

• It helps you check your assumptions about what the research will do.
• It helps identify the resources you have and the resources you might discover.
• It helps you determine if your intention for doing the project or research is actually meeting a need.
• It begins to build a research partnership plan.

Media Attributions

• Figure 2.2: Consultations and conversations using SPECIALTYPATHLIST within a community to determine project parameters and influences by L. Neel and D. Biin is used under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
• Figure 2.3: Using SPECIALTYPATHLIST as a Dialogue Tool with Community Authorities by L. Neel and D. Biin is used under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.

In this section, you gained some depth in how an Indigenized research project can be planned. You have also been made aware of the importance of how metaphor and imagery can help a research project gather, analyze, and disseminate results in a respectful way. The following activities examine how you can make your research interconnected, respectful, relational, responsible, and reciprocal.

In this section, you will consider Indigenous approaches to research from an ethical perspective. Developing a strong ethical stance requires conversations and agreements prior to starting research. Research ethics boards or committees in post-secondary institutions may require a research agreement that upholds Indigenous ownership, control, access, and protection of research involving Indigenous Peoples and communities. These boards and committees may also have such considerations only when the research funder requires them to do so. Most institutional practice falls somewhere in between. First Nations and Métis communities and sometimes urban organizations may also have separate agreements or protocols. At times, you will need to walk and negotiate between different requirements and assumptions. In this section, you will navigate ethical considerations of Indigenous research and be introduced to a community relationship toolkit that holds responsible, respectful, and protective measures.

Ethics are considered to be a set of practices and social behaviours based on values. Indigenous research ethics respect leadership and require developing trusting relationships. While there is much diversity among Indigenous Peoples and Nations overall, Indigenous ethics resonate with the values of honour, trust, honesty, and humility; they reflect commitment to the collective and embody a respectful relationship with the land. It is the responsibility of the researcher to identify how Indigenous ethics can influence research design and process.

In Indigenous communities, the process of ethical thinking begins at birth with storytelling as the primary learning process. Storytelling is used to guide behaviour and solidify belonging and responsibility to the family, community, and larger world. Through stories, a child develops identity and learns about moral responsibility. Through stories, the community articulates and embraces its shared valued system or mindset. Ethical thinking emerges from a community’s customs, teachings, and ideals. Researchers must take this mindset into account when conducting research in Indigenous communities and with Indigenous participants.

In The Seven Sacred Teachings of White Buffalo Calf Woman, Bouchard and Martin (2009) explain how Indigenous teachings involve notions of taking care of one another, collective decision-making, and sustainability. All are based on a value system that locates itself within the Anishinaabe seven grandfather sacred teachings. The sacred teachings of respect, bravery, honesty, humility, truth, wisdom, and love are significant guidelines that resonate in most Indigenous cultures. The teachings are represented by seven sacred animals each having a special gift to help the people understand and to maintain a connection to the land and to each other. The values embodied in the teachings coupled with storytelling, and articulated through Indigenous language, reinforce Indigenous ways of being and doing. In other words, fortifying ethical thinking lends itself to ethical practice.

Researchers need to understand and recognize the significance of Indigenous shared values and the community conventions that accompany them. Understanding Indigenous thought requires taking time to learn the ways of the Indigenous community you are working with and locating it within the core principles of the Tri-City Council Policy Statement, version 2 (TCPS 2), which include respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. Learn by connecting with community Elders, knowledge keepers, and leaders as a natural prelude to conducting a research study. Ensure your research study will benefit community life. Know how the roles and responsibilities of the Elders and leaders (both hereditary and elected) shape protocols, and recognize the kinship and other governance systems will influence who is involved and when research can occur.

Furthermore, it is critical to know that Indigenous Peoples’ experience with Canada carries a legacy of oppression and colonization. The devastating impacts of residential schools, the child welfare systems, and other colonial experiences have created deep losses for Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous participants in your research may be vulnerable to experiences of secondary or retriggered trauma. You must be very careful when planning and doing research that involves personal or intergenerational loss. If you are doing research about child welfare or residential schools, you will need to consider that Indigenous people tend to experience the loss of a child or children from a family and community as a loss to the Nation. This is demonstrated by Dr. Deborah Canada who provided a Métis mindset in her research, The Strength of the Sash: The Métis Peoples’ Model of Child Welfare [PDF].

While there are commonalities between Indigenous research and Western research philosophy, there are some fundamental differences. The Western academy’s notion of freedom often links to freedom in inquiry, opinion, and the disbursement of information. Indigenous concepts of freedom focus on how the people convey stories, or collect data, as a lending of knowledge to the researcher, and they have the freedom to determine how it is placed in the research. Clearly, although both entities share a notion of freedom, the action applied is different.

Researchers need to apply particular considerations when conducting research with Métis people. The researcher must be able to clarify that Métis research is different from other Indigenous research because of the unique experiences of Métis peoples. It is critically important to understand the diversity among Métis peoples. To mitigate ethical dilemmas in conducting Métis research, review the Principles of Ethical Métis Research [PDF]. Suffice to say, Métis research, like other Indigenous research, makes a difference in the lives of Indigenous Peoples and therefore should be approached mindfully and carefully.

Researchers must also take into account the ethical rules of each community as well as the concept of non- invasiveness. Respecting the role of leadership is a must and a way to move the research to another level. One of the most significant roles of leadership is to ensure that the community remains the owner of Indigenous knowledge and the community maintains the right of control and access. Without the support of leadership, research can be seen as a mis-inquiry into Indigenous knowledge and ways of life.

The ethics of Indigenous research are complex and require much preparation, but research plays an extremely important role in social transformation and reconciliation. Do this work well and you may be gifting a collaborative future.

Protocols for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities are unique to each community. While there may be some similarities in practices, it is important to learn about the protocols of the community you will be working with on your research project.

While many communities have participated in research projects previously, and some communities have developed their own research protocols, others may not have engaged with post-secondary institutions or other organizations on research projects and may not have formal written protocols directly related to research. Researchers need to talk with community leaders about the community’s experience with research and what guidelines are in place. You will need to ensure you can adhere to existing community protocols and practices or work closely with community representatives to develop protocols as part of reaching a formal, written agreement prior to commencing research activities.

Indigenous communities have been researched over and over again, and more often than not this has occurred without consultation or permission. Some Indigenous communities may be distrustful of researchers, and you may have to learn about their past experiences. Sit quietly and listen; do not defend or explain. Make it clear you are there to hear the community’s voice, and then make respectful inquiries about how ­– if you get their permission

Asking for permission is a vital component of the process, and you may be required to ask for permission at various levels. Seek support and advice as you move along the permissions processes. As you move through the permissions process, recognize the following:

• The community is the expert and will guide the researcher in the process of obtaining and understanding why permission is required and how to proceed respectfully and responsibly.
• Permission is a major component of community consultation.
• The protocol of permission ensures mutual agreement, which means that both parties are clear in their understanding of the research project; in other words, it is the action of “good manners.”
• Establishing honest and respectful relationships lays the foundation for seeking and receiving permission.
• Before beginning any research project, researchers should:
  • Examine community benefits and consider how the community will benefit from the study
  • Understand the cultural and social needs of the community
  • Pay attention to the role of political leadership
  • Confirm that the research is a partnership
  • Understand that collaboration is a reciprocal process
  • Confirm that the research is owned by the community

Building a research agreement with a community engagement toolkit

As you work through this guide, you will begin to realize that there needs to be a conversation and agreement on what you can use in your research to strengthen both the data gathering and analysis. In British Columbia, post- secondary institutions are engaged in and supportive of educational partnerships with Indigenous institutes and educational organizations. A toolkit developed in 2011 provides a way for institutions to engage and accommodate learning partnerships.

The Post-Secondary Education Partnership Agreement Toolkit [PDF] was jointly developed by the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association, the University of Victoria, and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology. Part 1 provides situational information and history. Part 2 and Appendix 3 have information and procedures that can aid researchers in building a responsible, ethical, reciprocal, and relevant agreement.

In this section, you explored how ethics reflects beliefs and values. How we value and express ethics depends on our own teachings, so we need to create a place of trust and understanding to hold conversations on what research can be. The Post-Secondary Education Partnership Agreement Toolkit is a good way to build your own approach to research agreements. The following activities build on the information shared in this section.

In this section, you will explore examples of collaborative and reciprocal research with Indigenous communities. Conducting research that is respectful, relevant, responsible, and reciprocal can be a difficult undertaking (Archibald, 2008; Pidgeon, 2008). Building trust takes time as many Indigenous people mistrust researchers due to the negative legacy of research on the topic of Indigenous Peoples. This section outlines projects as examples to express how Indigenous communities can benefit from reciprocal and interconnected research relationships. The projects, which the authors have contributed to and supported, range from exploring the concept and roles of reconciliation to supporting linguistic visions of Indigenous communities.

Salish Community University Research Alliance (CURA) project

In 2001, the SENĆOŦEN- and Hul′q′umi′num′-speaking people began planning with the linguistics department at the University of Victoria for ways their communities could deliver more language learning opportunities for all age groups.

Because the linguistics department was working closely with these communities on other important language revitalization projects, planning for new approaches continued to involve fluent speakers, language teachers, and language curriculum developers from communities across southern Vancouver Island: (W′SANEĆ (Saanich), Sc’ianew (Beecher Bay), T′Sou-ke (Sooke), Khowutz′un (Duncan), and Stz′uminus (Chemainus).

The project was guided by a steering committee with language speakers from each of the participating communities. The steering committee provided direction and guidance on each of the community-based initiatives undertaken as part of the larger research project.

In addition, the project was developed to ensure several community-based coordinators could be hired to work closely with each community to carry out each initiative. This was important, as it empowered and enabled each community to be responsive to any unanticipated changes and to seek any further guidance it might need from the steering committee and lead investigators.

This project is an excellent example of how tools such as SPECIALTYPATHLIST can be used to work through planning processes between researchers and communities and to enable strategies and actions to be developed in an informed way.

 Goals of this research project were to:

• Conduct research to facilitate the revitalization of the SENĆOŦEN and Hul′q′umi′num′ languages
• Facilitate the development of resources, materials, and programs needed to take a step toward the revitalization of the SENĆOŦEN and Hul′q′umi′num′ languages
• Train Hul′q′umi′num′ Treaty Group and Saanich Native Heritage Society members in methods of research, teaching, and learning, which are related to the language revitalization process
• Train non-Aboriginal university faculty and students in community-based research and have community members provide guidance on issues related to culture, protocols, and working in and with communities

Learn more about the Salish CURA project.

Selkirk College: Exploring Reconciliation Through Community College Education

In 2016, Selkirk College received a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant to conduct research on exploring reconciliation through community college education. Through this research project, Selkirk College addressed the challenge of identifying its role as a public post-secondary institution in the work of reconciliation. Specifically, as a community college located in a rural region with diverse Indigenous communities, Selkirk College asked the question: How does a community college respectfully engage in reconciliation through education with the First Nations and Métis communities in the traditional territories in which it operates?

This research was framed in an Indigenous paradigm where the investigators worked collaboratively with their community members, including First Nations, Métis, and other Indigenous community members (non-status/organizations), and it was participatory, with the cooperation of Elders, residential school survivors, and student and youth groups. These groups decided, along with the lead investigator, how they would prefer the data to be collected. Some of the options for the participatory approach to data collection included focus groups, gatherings, and interviews.

By having a deeper understanding of its role in reconciliation, the college can strive to create a post-secondary education environment that includes authentic Indigenous voice, is based on truth and mutual respect, and follows the values and behaviours that the community identifies. In exploring the meaning of reconciliation, the college recognizes that each First Nations, Métis, and other Indigenous community throughout its operational region requires an independent dialogue to determine the behaviours and values that the community wishes to see reflected in the college’s efforts in reconciliation.

This project was unique in organization and consisted of two research teams, which were led by two Indigenous primary investigators designated by the First Nations. Informed by these values and behaviours, the research team developed tools to implement “systemic change” in education and address the knowledge and values gap for college staff, instructors, and students wanting to understand their role in the reconciliation efforts. These efforts will continue to strengthen the relationships between the First Nations, Métis, and other Indigenous communities and the cluster of post-secondary institutions throughout the B.C. Southern Interior.

Goals of this proposed research project were to:

• Further understand the impact of residential schools
• Further understand Indigenous communities’ expectations for public post-secondary community colleges today
• Continue to strengthen relationships based on respect and reciprocity with partner Nations and the Indigenous communities served by increasing enrolment, satisfaction, and retention of Indigenous students
• Develop tools and resources that support and guide students and staff and produce the kinds of values and behaviours identified in the dialogues

The Northern Institute: Indigenous resiliency and engagement in biosecurity threats

The research partnership between the Northern Institute of Charles Darwin University, Plant & Food Research of New Zealand, and the Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre (PBCRC) with Māori and Northern Territory knowledge authorities built an engagement model for how Indigenous communities can support and lead research and environmental management on their traditional territories.

Weeds and noxious plant species and animals introduced to the Australian and New Zealand lands have significantly impacted Indigenous communities’ economic, social, and food land resources. While regulatory authorities and relevant agencies have worked with Indigenous communities, they needed to create an effective and respectful community engagement process that held Indigenous voice and knowledge.

The Aboriginal Indigenous Engagement Model was conceptualized from previous plant biosecurity operations of Mimosa pigra on Aboriginal land in Australia’s Northern Territory, which had buy-in from multiple agencies to eradicate biosecurity incursions. The work by the PBCRC’s Indigenous engagement team in building engagement models for two continents had not been attempted before. As Australian and Māori knowledge keepers converged to discuss cultural knowledge, similarities in the protocols of food preparation came forward.

The Aboriginal Indigenous Engagement Model was designed to draw parallels between the immutable stages and principles of mirrwanna seed processing and the essential steps and principles of effective community engagement. The model included the rationale for each step and the underpinning values in Aboriginal culture. For the Warramirri, Mak Mak Marranunggu, and other Yolŋu language groups, key values include:

• Djakamirr (empowerment)
• Raypirri-wadatj (discipline)
• Marri-yulkthirr ga gurrutu (trust and relationships)
• Rom (authority)
• Nhama manymakum (respect)
• Gumurrkunhamirr (partnership)

The Aboriginal Indigenous Engagement Model builds cross-cultural links and provides a way for communities to respond to biosecurity incursions that threaten traditional cropping practices and force the adoption of alternative cropping, surveillance, and management technologies.

These engagement models have broad application and can target government agencies and officials; research, science, and technology providers; regulatory and industry agencies involved in biosecurity incursions; and community stakeholders. The key is to develop consistency in the process used by these agencies when engaging Indigenous communities and community stakeholders. The research project is now figuring out ways to incorporate these engagement models as protocols and procedures for inclusive and relevant involvement in research and policy.

The careful collection of traditional knowledge from Elders in both Māori and Aboriginal communities created trust, understanding, and a willingness to share details that the research teams could embed in the models. It was also acknowledged that there are situations in which, for cultural reasons, information could not be shared and alternative paths were necessary. This methodology has resulted in models for engagement developed by Indigenous communities for Indigenous communities, thereby increasing the probability of adoption and success.

For more information, see the following websites:

• Northern Institute of Charles Darwin University research project
• Aboriginal Indigenous Engagement Model: Advice for Biosecurity Workers [PDF]
• Final Report: Engagement for Resilience in Indigenous Communities

Although these Indigenous-led and Indigenized research examples are not definitive, they provide a snapshot of the innovative, inclusive, and reciprocal work that can occur in research. The following activities are an opportunity for you to once again visit your research idea and explore how to create spaces for self-determination.