Research

INTRODUCTION

Ethical collaborations among researchers, Indigenous knowledge holders, and their communities are increasingly being recognized as critically important for both the integrity and the outcomes of research (United Nations General Assembly 2007, Wong et al. 2020, Buxton et al. 2021, Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR], Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC], and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [SSHRC] 2022). Together the experience and knowledge of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems can provide synergistic insights, distinct from that which either could realize in isolation (Riedlinger and Berkes 2001, Polfus et al. 2016, Popp et al. 2019, Wong et al. 2020, Buxton et al. 2021, Reid et al. 2021). There is, therefore, a growing momentum toward exploring how multiple knowledge systems can be brought together in ethical ways (Ermine 2007, Tengö et al. 2014, Rathwell et al. 2015, Reo et al. 2017, Thompson et al. 2020, Dawson et al. 2021, Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). Yet, co-creating research projects and methodologies that respect the integrity of Indigenous knowledge systems, rather than subsuming, assimilating, or integrating them into a Western scientific hegemony continues to be a challenge (Houde 2007, McGregor 2009, 2018, David-Chavez and Gavin 2018, Latulippe and Klenk 2020).

Considering this challenge, metaphors have been introduced to support “thinking through” ethical relations between diverse knowledge systems (Wilson 2008, Larson 2011). Some examples include the Two Row Wampum treaty belt where two patterns are sewn in parallel to each other with no overlap, symbolizing co-existence and non-interference. This metaphor was used in North America in the 1600s, as an ethical guide demonstrating how Indigenous and Western societies could create laws and governance regimes that would not interfere with one another (Hill and Coleman 2019). Etuaptmumk or Two-Eyed Seeing is a contemporary metaphor that reflects seeing with both Western and Indigenous eyes where parallel points of view are considered, and outcomes embrace an ethic of being for the betterment of all (Bartlett et al. 2012, Reid et al. 2021). The Waka-Taurua (double canoe in Māori) presented by Maxwell et al. (2020) symbolizes knowledge systems as parallel canoes lashed and moving together, but each with a unique identity. Kimmerer (2013) describes a braid as a symbol for engaging different threads (knowledge systems) to create a stronger whole. Specific to biodiversity research, Absolon (2011) presents flowers as symbols to represent a shared research journey. David-Chavez et al. (2020) employ the yuca root and growth model as a metaphor for their research process. Shaw et al. (2023) reflect their results with a medicine wheel metaphor to emphasize connectedness. These goals and metaphorical symbols of ethical relationships between ways of knowing are helpful reflective tools.

Several institutions have provided guidance in relation to ethical research conduct with Indigenous peoples and communities (United Nations General Assembly 2007, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami [ITK] and Nunavut Research Institute 2007, ITK 2018, CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC 2022, First Nations Information Governance Centre [FNIGC] 2024, Métis National Council [MNC] 2024). Yet, scholars note that when guided by communities in Indigenous ways of being, knowing, seeing, and sharing, ethical collaborations are nuanced, and context dependent (Wilson et al. 2020, Wong et al. 2020, Chiblow 2021, Ignace et al. 2023). As Reid et al. (2024) suggest, with the rapid increase in individuals and organizations that are motivated to work with Indigenous peoples, there is a need for more practical insights for implementation of ethical collaborative practice when bridging knowledge systems, particularly in ways that do not place extra burden on Indigenous Peoples and scholars. We respond to this need by illuminating practical actions that are in line with ethical approaches to bridging knowledge systems.

Our approach involves concepts including “knowledge systems,” “values,” “bridging knowledge systems,” and “Action Items.” We follow Wilson’s (2008) conceptualization of knowledge systems as the way a consciousness experiences the world, including interacting elements of axiology, methodology, ontology, and epistemology. Each of these elements are constantly interacting, as, for example, axiology (or values) steer the choice of actions (methodology), while both are framed by how one sees themselves in relation to the world and the cosmos (ontology). Epistemology refers to “how we know what we know,” the way of gathering and validating knowledge. We use the term “values” throughout the paper as a more accessible word for axiology.

We have chosen the term “bridging knowledge systems” as a defined concept, and subset of a more general conceptualization of “weaving” knowledge systems. An ethic around self-determination and knowledge integrity is embedded in Rathwell et al.’s (2015) definition of bridging knowledge systems. Rathwell et al. (2015:853) define bridging knowledge systems as “maintaining the integrity of each knowledge system while creating settings for two-way exchange of understanding for mutual learning.” The term “weaving knowledge systems” has been introduced by scholars to describe case studies that connect Indigenous and Western knowledges along a spectrum, from reporting empirical results from both Indigenous and Western knowledge, all the way to case studies engaged in decolonizing, collaborative methods (Johnson and Madge 2016, Whyte et al. 2016, Tengö et al. 2017, Henri et al. 2021, Wilcox et al. 2023). Braiding is another useful conceptualization for how knowledge systems can come together in complementary and ethical ways (Kimmerer 2013). Knowledge co-production is another way to conceptualize how Western and Indigenous modes of inquiry can be complementary for enhanced learning (Armitage et al. 2011, Yua et al. 2022).

Positionality

Processes of self-reflection are critical to exploring and implementing bridging knowledge systems (Lavallée 2009). As a group of authors, we have spent substantial time grappling with issues of place and power, shared or conflicting values for how to steward biodiversity and ecosystems, and our roles as scientists and collaborators in settings that seek to bridge Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. We are a group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars who, at the time of writing this piece, work for the Government of Canada and/or in academia. As an interdisciplinary group, we have backgrounds in environmental and earth sciences (including ecology, biology, genetics, and geology), social sciences (including anthropology and human geography), and the arts and humanities (including theater and music). We collaborated on this manuscript from different locations across Canada and the United States [USA] including Treaty One territory and the homeland of the Red River Métis (Winnipeg, Manitoba), Mohawk, Algonquin, and Anishinaabe territory (Gatineau QC and Ottawa ON), Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee territory (Guelph and Kingston ON), Mohawk territory (Montréal QC), and O’odham Jewed, Akimel O’odham (Upper Pima), Hohokam territory (Arizona, USA). We have sat with the truth of colonialism and are sensitive to its ongoing permeation in research practice. Although each of us has training from the Western academy, we seek to uplift the equally valid and valuable knowledge held by Indigenous peoples and communities. Many of us have actively learned from Indigenous Elders and/or mentors in settings far removed from the Western academy. In the context of this project, there was an opportunity to engage in a collaborative learning process grounded in our shared desire to elevate ethical bridging of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in research.

METHODS

We developed a mixed methods approach that leveraged the quantitative, qualitative, creative, and collaborative skills of all co-authors. We use the term “Action Items” throughout this paper to describe aggregated groups of actions in practice that can be considered as entry points for bridging knowledge systems in ethical ways. We refrain from identifying Action Items as “best practices” because we strongly feel that what is best for any context can only be decided by Indigenous research partners. We therefore introduce the phrase “Action Items” to avoid a normative assumption that these actions are good or appropriate in all contexts. We use the term “examples in practice” to describe actions taken by the case studies analyzed. Below and in Figure 1, we outline the various steps involved in our methodology.

Step 1: Create a database of case studies bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in terrestrial biodiversity research case studies

This meta-synthesis builds upon a substantial effort to systematically review and characterize examples of studies that empirically report results from both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in biodiversity research, monitoring, and management in Canada (and other jurisdictions where the Indigenous territorial boundaries extend (e.g., Alaska and Greenland; Walsh and Downe 2005, Finfgeld-Connett 2018, Henri et al. 2021; Provencher et al., unpublished manuscript). This effort identified 177 terrestrial biodiversity research, monitoring, and management case studies from an initial pool of 12,088 articles screened at title and abstract (see Henri et al. 2021 and Appendix 1 for more details) and expands on previous work (see Alexander et al. 2019, 2021). With a focus on collaborative research and monitoring we excluded the case studies concerning biodiversity management, resulting in a database of 96 case studies. These case studies were systematically coded according to 18 indicators of good and ethical Indigenous engagement practices for research, which were drawn from three recent systematic literature reviews (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018, Ibbett and Brittain 2020, Thompson et al. 2020; see Table A1 for the eligibility criteria used to create search strings, and Table A2 for the complete list of indicators).

Step 2: Combine indicators into composites and select studies with high composite scores as exemplars

We hypothesized that studies that scored high or moderately high across 18 indicators that are recognized to be important for ethical research conduct with Indigenous peoples and communities (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018, Ibbett and Brittain 2020, Thompson et al. 2020) could provide descriptive insight and illustrative examples of actions that would support ethical knowledge bridging in biodiversity research. We used a method developed by Littlechild et al. (unpublished manuscript) to summarize the indicators and select high scoring case studies for qualitative analysis. First, indicators were grouped into themes of “Participation” (1–5), “Quality” (6–13), and “Characteristics” (14–18). Calculating the mean of each group of indicators gives a composite measure of participation strength, quality, and the characteristics of each study (Appendix 1).

Only four studies had high participation, quality, and characteristic composite scores (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). We found a cluster analysis helpful for identifying an additional set of five studies with moderately high composite scores that nonetheless provided interesting examples for qualitative analysis (Appendix 1; see also Littlechild et al., unpublished manuscript). We refer to nine case studies selected for further analysis as “exemplars” (sensu Bronk et al. 2013).

Ethical research acknowledges cultural, historical, and institutional context, and is shaped by all three. An important aspect of context in Canada are treaties that define rights and obligations of the Crown and Indigenous groups (Constitution Act 1982, Vowel 2016, Joseph 2018; Fig. 2); three of the four highest scoring case studies we examined are from areas with modern land claims that provide more institutional support for co-produced research than historic treaties (one case study), and three case studies are from unceded territories where a treaty relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples has not been negotiated.

Step 3: Create an analytical framework and, in group discussions, identify examples of practices related to important values and settings

We created an analytical framework based on insights from the published literature about effecting bridging knowledge systems. Reano (2020) identifies six values that are shared across many Indigenous research frameworks (i.e., conceptual, or guiding frameworks designed and valued by Indigenous scholars or communities) that are relevant to research, teaching, mentoring, and leading. Descriptions of each value in Reano (2020; see Table 1) provided a starting point for the types of actions and content areas from each exemplar that could be discussed in our group discussions. We complemented the six values highlighted by Reano (2020) with four “settings” (contexts for bridging knowledge systems) introduced by Rathwell et al. (2015), which enabled us to tease out the various conceptual, practical, and structural settings where bridging knowledge occurs in each exemplar (Table 1).

Our group discussions involved discussing each exemplar for 1 to 2.5 hours in sub-groups of co-authors (four, on average). Group members independently analyzed each exemplar focusing on the values and setting characteristics within the analytical framework in preparation for discussion with co-authors. We took a strength-based approach in this analysis, aiming to identify and highlight successful practices that can serve as inspiration to scientists and practitioners who are interested in improving their research practice. Discussion participants took turns describing elements of each exemplar case study that stood out to them as strengths of each study, relating each back to the values identified by Reano (2020) and/or settings for bridging knowledge systems (as per Rathwell et al. 2015). We created a matrix database for each case study with 10 columns titled by the six values and four settings; the cells were filled with examples of how each exemplar leveraged settings and/or upheld the values. In total, we identified 89 unique “examples in practices” or actions from all nine exemplars.

Step 4: Identify Action Items and illustrative examples

We grouped similar examples together to create 26 Action Items (Berg 1995, Saldaña 2021). Each Action Item was framed as a “to do” action. For example, six of the exemplar case studies actively engaged with Indigenous languages in different ways: Ljubicic et al. 2018a centralize Inuit language throughout the text; Polfus et al. 2016 describe the outcomes of workshops not being translated back to English but rather results are maintained in the Dene language; Eisner et al. 2012 conduct interviews in Inuktitut; Housty et al. 2014 identify key Heiltsuk terms as pillars for their framework; Lemelin et al. 2010 conduct open ended interviews in Cree; Beaudoin et al. 2016 use Innu words to describe the actions of their process. These examples provide a diversity of ways that researchers and practitioners may engage with Indigenous languages and were grouped together to identify an Action Item “actively use relevant Indigenous language.” Although multiple examples supported our identification of each Action Item, we provide only one illustrative example for each Action Item in our results.

Step 5: Group Action Items into Action Platforms

To reduce the complexity of our results, we further grouped these 26 Action Items into four groups or Action Platforms united by common themes (Berg 1995, Saldaña 2021). We asked co-authors to independently group the 26 Action Items into clusters united by a common theme of their choosing. We held follow-up discussions to clarify perspectives and create consensus on the final four groupings: Truth, Good Relationships, Research Approach, and Methods.

Step 6: Engage in symbol-based reflection

Symbols and metaphors are a useful way for people to conceptualize complex things and make sense of their worlds (Lavallée 2009, Kimmerer 2013), including symbols that are embedded in the landscape (Kerr and Adamov Ferguson 2021). Lavallée (2009:30) describes Anishinaabe symbol-based reflection as “an arts-based research approach.” Other scholars note how metaphors offer a structural frame, to hold multiple information points together (Carpenter 2008, Thibodeau and Boroditsky 2011). We explored symbol-based reflection through a metaphor and visual art to honor the complexity and holism of our learning and to balance the segmented structure of our results tables. After identifying the four Action Platforms the first author visualized how these components could be reflected as a whole picture or story. She engaged in creative processes of song writing and poetry to begin a visualization process. The first author then asked co-authors to play with the emerging growing tree metaphor via creative discussions. We collaborated with an Indigenous owned graphic design company (Vincent Designs, Winnipeg, Manitoba) to create a visual representation of our Growing Tree metaphor (presented in Fig. 3).

RESULTS

Action Platforms and associated Action Items

We identified four Action Platforms that host 26 Action Items groups from 89 examples in practice determined by analyzing nine exemplar case studies (Tables 2–5). We refer to these four Action Platforms as: (1) Truth, meaning actions related to understanding and acknowledging the colonial history and the contemporary context of a project; (2) Good Relationships, meaning actions related to growing and strengthening relationships; (3) Research Approach, meaning actions related to governing and guiding the research process; and, finally, (4) Methods, meaning actions related to the methods used for gathering, analyzing, and reporting information. We present tables for each Action Platform with associated Action Items and a selected example of how the Action Item is operationalized by the case studies (Tables 2–5). For each Action Item, we note the values and settings that supported their identification (both values and settings are included in italics, with no distinction made between the two).

The first Action Platform centers on the theme of Truth (Table 2). Action Items that consider history and power in the institutional and governance context from which research projects grow are grouped into the platform of Truth. Exemplar case studies recognize relevant history and impacts of colonialism and identify relevant land claim agreements and treaties. Land claims are tied to a shift in the power to make decisions, and specifically, decisions about biodiversity conservation, research, and management. Exemplar case studies demonstrate an understanding of multi-level governance structures by describing the context of decision-making structures and institutions at local and broader scales. Exemplar case studies often also identify bridging organizations and show insight into how the study can connect to decision making and governance. The involvement of bridging organizations is noted to have significant impacts on realizing project goals (Rathwell and Peterson 2012). Exemplars often challenge the status quo institutions and multi-level governance structures to distribute power in decision making differently. While making an intellectual contribution to biodiversity studies, these exemplar case studies both acknowledge history and colonialism and explicitly advocate for specific changes to those systems to better balance power and uplift Indigenous knowledge systems in collaborative spaces.

The second Action Platform revolves around the theme of Good Relationships (Table 3). Five Action Items are in this group. As identified elsewhere, in the context of Indigenous knowledge systems, good relationships expand past human-to-human connections and include relationships between humans and non-human beings (Wilson 2008, Kimmerer 2013, Chiblow 2021, Menzies et al. 2024). The value of relationality was the most prominent way we identified the Action Items in this group. Other values linked to Good Relationships are centralizing Indigenous perspectives, multi-logicality, and serving the interests of Indigenous communities. Exemplar case studies uplift the multidimensional nature of relationships among all our relations (human and non-human). Exemplar case studies find ways to honor the depth and meaning of these relationships in methodological decisions by allowing Indigenous relationships to non-human relatives to drive/inform research methods. Exemplar case studies demonstrate Good Relationships between the authors and the communities where, over a period, they build relationships with communities. Exemplar case studies honor Elder-youth relationships. For example, by creating opportunities for youth and Elders to be on the land together (Ljubicic et al. 2018b) or sharing accessible educational materials co-created with Elders (Eisner et al. 2012, Polfus et al. 2017). Finally, exemplar case studies identify local Elders, or community participants who function as brokers between the project and the community. This Action Item is similar to the role of bridging organizations described in the Truth platform above, but at the scale of the individual. Because it is the individuals’ relationships with the community and the research project that allow them to be effective brokers, we included this action item in the group of Good Relationships.

The third Action Platform revolves around a project’s Research Approach (Table 4). We identified how exemplar case studies thoughtfully address how they will approach bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems throughout the research process. Exemplar case studies are explicit about which Indigenous conceptual frameworks will guide projects (regional, local). A lot of time and exploration is required to identify what makes sense for any context. Exemplar case studies are transparent about the philosophical underpinnings of their work. The methods used by exemplar case studies create space for holistic worldviews and responses. This Action Item reveals exemplars broadening the methods traditionally used in biodiversity research to include social scientific methods, as well as engagement with the humanities. Exemplar case studies recognize local Indigenous knowledge systems as unique. Authors of exemplar case studies understand there is no substitute to learning from local Indigenous knowledge holders and understand the difference between broad definitions of Indigenous knowledge systems, Indigenous ecological knowledge, Indigenous local knowledge, and regionally/locally specific expressions.

Action Items related to Research Approach shift the power dynamic of decision-making in research by having Indigenous partners set the research agenda. This is a straightforward way to ensure that a project is centered on Indigenous community priorities. The entry point for the projects of exemplar case studies is perhaps broader than traditional biodiversity research rooted solely in Western approaches and methods. Exemplar case studies choose an inherently holistic subject matter that allows the setting where knowledge is bridged to be more holistic because interconnected elements of the system are addressed, rather than one isolated variable. The exemplar case studies facilitate adaptive methods that change with community input. This implies that the very Research Approach is adaptive and must be flexible and malleable based on community priorities. Exemplar case studies respect Indigenous data sovereignty. They find ways to protect delicate information, giving the discretion to local Indigenous knowledge holders to share the results. This means that some results may not be published by scientists, because the sovereignty of that information is more important than the benefits of publication. Also, material outcomes from exemplar case studies are left in the communities of origin to be available as learning opportunities for youth and others from that community. A Research Approach can also shift power and opportunities by integrating local capacity building into methods and processes. By doing so the research project creates learning and income opportunities that may serve the communities past the project time line.

The exemplar case studies uplift Indigenous knowledge systems throughout the research process and in different ways. For example, exemplar case studies highlight the original contributions of Indigenous knowledge to global understandings of biodiversity and wildlife (Lemelin et al. 2010, Polfus et al. 2017); some also present Indigenous knowledge quotations as results in and of themselves as contributions that can be cited in other contexts (Ljubicic et al. 2018a). Exemplar case studies value multiple ways of knowing throughout the research process and paper. For example, in the paper both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems are described in parallel. In contrast to some cases that have Indigenous knowledge systems as an input into a study that is guided and framed by Western scientific standards in ecological research, these exemplar case studies show a steady thread of valuing both ways of knowing in the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions of the paper. Exemplar case studies further identified that there are geographic areas of spiritual and cultural importance that may be protected from the project itself. They protect spiritual and cultural spaces in research design. This Action Item guides the development of data governance protocols, which ensure protection of these spaces.

The fourth Action Platform represents Methods. Five Action Items are in this group. Methods and processes that occur on the Land create space for oral histories to be shared in context. Similarly, through active use of relevant Indigenous languages, exemplar case studies are more capable of maintaining the integrity of the Indigenous knowledge being shared. They address how translating ideas from Indigenous language to English would devalue the meaning and expression. Exemplar case studies reference spiritual connections in Indigenous knowledge quotations. This Action Item is a way of holding space for spiritual elements of Indigenous knowledge systems without interpreting them. Spiritual connections to biodiversity are integral to Indigenous ways of knowing, and yet often dismissed by Western knowledge systems. Sharing quotations that allude to these connections is a way of respecting that they exist. Exemplar case studies use visualizations as boundary objects that can reflect the holism of Indigenous knowledge. Participatory mapping is a common way exemplars engage with a boundary object (e.g., a map), and by doing so, they create an interface for knowledge systems to engage. Exemplars also employ visual arts and graphic design to create shared visualizations that validate and clarify what is being shared. When there is a conflict in understandings among knowledge systems, exemplar case studies respectfully address differences between Indigenous and Western insights. Exemplar case studies take the time to unpack what may be causing a dissonance in understanding a biodiversity phenomenon. Instead of assuming that one way of knowing or contribution “is wrong” and the other “is right,” differences are approached with curiosity and humility.

DISCUSSION

Using A Growing Tree metaphor as a reflective tool

We offer A Growing Tree metaphor as a conceptual framework that relates Action Items to each other and combines them into a cohesive story (Fig. 3, with selected Action Items included). We hope this metaphor serves as lens for contemplation and reflection (Thibodeau and Boroditsky 2011), and an invitation to more deeply consider how Action Items and Platforms for bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in biodiversity research work together in a research process. We chose a tree metaphor because we believe that most biodiversity researchers know something about how trees grow, and that their knowledge of the ecological processes will make the simple metaphor more accessible and useful (Steele et al. 2022). We acknowledge there is a risk that this metaphor may be considered overly simple, linear, or hierarchical (Nardon and Hari 2021). In our illustration and discussion, we emphasize that growth is not in fact linear, hierarchical, or simple: trees are components of complex diverse rhizomatic ecological systems that vary over time and space. Our image (Fig. 3) includes four tree species that grow in different contexts in different seasons, and a bird’s nest that alludes to other emergent elements of a complex ecosystem. Root systems represent diverse and dynamic relationship formations.

We reflected on how the roots of a tree are part of a vast network of interconnections that can cover large geographic areas. From above the ground, it would be impossible to identify the extent of these root systems. Interconnected root systems reflect how the relationships of any one research project or community initiative are components of a much larger living system without which the project may not be able to take form. We reflected on how traditionally Western biodiversity research would not consider Good Relationships to be a component of the research endeavor, and hence would be hidden from sight. It is the roots of the tree that ground a project within a context. Good Relationships, symbolized by the roots, are present and/or active even when research methods are not being applied. There is also variation in types of relationships, just as there is variation in the thickness of roots. There are also spaces without roots or relationships.

The trunk and branches of the tree encourage reflection on the potential feedback between the foliage of the tree sending nutrients to the branches, trunk, and roots, just as the roots store and send nutrients and water up to branches all the way to the foliage and flowers. This feedback facilitates reflection on how Good Relationships support the growth of the tree, while acts of co-creation (reflected by Methods and the foliage) nourish those relationships (roots). The trunk of the tree, symbolizing the Research Approach, creates a boundary and structure for networks that supports exchange of nutrients and water between the roots and the foliage. The foliage emerges from the shape and structure of the tree trunk and branches, symbolizing the Methods. The foliage is the most visible part of the tree in some seasons. Research projects are also dynamic, and methods such as being on the land are performed in specific periods.

The story of A Growing Tree has a beginning, middle, and end, yet continues in a cycle. A narrative reflection helps us frame our results in a much more dynamic way, that better reflects the complexity of experiences in bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. For example, Action Items will not all occur simultaneously, they will take a unique path based on the context and the evolution of relationships in that context. In fact, it can take many years to establish trusting relationships that can respectfully navigate power sharing in research and monitoring (Castleden et al. 2012, Wilson et al. 2020).

The intention to bridge Indigenous knowledge and Western scientific knowledge to improve biodiversity research could be symbolized by a seed. That intention is set in a context of colonialism and previous relationships among Indigenous peoples and researchers that may or may not support the growth of a particular seed or intention. Different types of seeds grow in different soils, and what grows depends on both the place and the seed. Trees adapted to rocky dry conditions usually do not thrive in rich moist conditions. Similarly, some researchers are not capable of planting the type of seed that grows in rocky dry soil, not because there is no space, but because a different type of seed is needed in that context.

A holistic, interconnected system of actions and values

In some cases, multiple values (Reano 2020) can be honored by the same Action Item. Action Items that reflect multiple values at the same time could be particularly important for working in a good way. An example is the Action Item “Actively use relevant Indigenous languages,” which nurtures several values including holism, relationality, multi-logicality, and serving the interests of Indigenous communities. Many guidelines also suggest that engaging with Indigenous languages is important for working with Indigenous communities in ethical ways (ITK and NISR 2007, Wong et al. 2020, FNIGC 2024, Reid et al. 2024). Adding a language and ethnographic component to biodiversity and ecological research generally requires additional time, money, and disciplinary expertise; provided the investment aligns with community priorities it may be strategic, supporting multiple values simultaneously, and providing adding additional benefits to community such as language and cultural revitalization.

We also note path dependency in the research process, in that some Action Items may be necessary precursors to success with other Action Items. For example, the Action Item build relationships with communities is necessary for other methodological actions to occur. The interplay between Action Items, values, and practice in context is an exciting area for further exploration.

The research context

The way values are understood and expressed is context dependent. We shine light on some relationships between values of Indigenous research frameworks and actions taken in nine exemplar case studies and hope that these can serve as accountability metrics to guide and inspire other projects. However, conversations with relevant Indigenous communities and Indigenous knowledge holders about specific projects should always override ideas from other contexts. Indigenous language, cultures, and contexts are diverse, and each will have unique ways of understanding connections between actions and values in their context. It is therefore essential for Indigenous partners and their communities to identify what values are important, and how they are expressed (Reano 2020). Actively and transparently working with partners and collaborators to understand how values relate to actions can reduce risks of offense and misunderstanding (Latulippe and Klenk 2020, Wong et al. 2020). Exemplar case studies intentionally clarify the ways values and actions connect. For example, Polfus et al. 2017 used iterative drawing sessions and discussions to unpack what respect means for human-caribou relationships. Interpreting values may also be inappropriate for some people in some contexts (Latulippe and Klenk 2020, David-Chavez et al. 2024).

Expectations around how to engage with Indigenous knowledge in research have changed since 2010, when the first of our nine case studies was published. For example, positionality statements are becoming a norm in writing that involves Indigenous peoples and their knowledge systems. As a dimension of positionality, several of the exemplar case studies describe trust building and relationship building as an essential part of research success and legitimacy (Lemelin et al. 2010, Beaudoin et al. 2016, Polfus et al. 2016, 2017, Ljubicic 2018a, Bronen et al. 2020). In doing so, they are creating new expectations for published academic texts, even when space is limited.

Three of the exemplar case studies were led by Polfus (2014, 2016, 2017). This is interesting for a few reasons. First it is impressive that one scholar’s collection of works ranks so highly across many variables of ethical engagement for bridging knowledge systems (see Appendix 1, Table 1A). Second, it allows us to see an evolution in one scholar’s practice of bridging knowledge systems. In 2014 work with Taku River Tlingit First Nation of British Columbia, two ways of knowing are discussed in parallel. In the 2016 and 2017 work with communities of the Sahtu region of the Northwest Territories, we see a collaborative co-creation process, or what the author calls “learning together.” Researchers can and do change and grow over time.

Researchers are also unique, and something that is possible and appropriate for one researcher may not be for another. For example, Polfus is a visual artist who can create artistic settings to bridge knowledge systems (Polfus et al. 2017). Polfus brings her unique set of skills and strengths to her work, as do we all. Other researchers have other skills, capacities, and interests, and their work will look different. Bringing one’s unique humanness to collaborations can support relationship building and project outcomes. Alluding to A Growing Tree, each of us is capable of “planting different seeds.”

Important limitations

In this paper we take a strength-based approach to consideration of Indigenous knowledge and positive actions that can support bridging knowledge systems. Although this is our intended approach, we acknowledge that there exist “relations of harm” inherent in Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations with each other and non-humans. We understand that there is a coexistence of care and harm in complex relational structures (Verran 2013, Povinelli 2016); this research illuminates actions to promote care. In some contexts, conditions of co-existence may be more appropriate than an attempt at mutual learning. As depicted by the Two Row Wampum metaphor, knowledge systems might exist in parallel without an attempt to bridge (Hill and Coleman 2019).

Our analysis is limited to the published texts. Authors may have engaged in more actions or processes that were beyond the scope of an article to explain. Research articles are brief and constrained, so authors make decisions about what to focus on and what to omit. Our analysis focuses on the strengths of each case study as written. An opportunity to interview these authors would be a valuable way to understand more about their approach. Nonetheless, we distilled lessons from the exemplar case studies based on what authors provided in text. Our meta-synthesis provides a holistic view on how key actions that honor Indigenous values can be conceptualized together into a framework and set of accountability metrics.

Contributing to a rapidly changing landscape

Significant recent contributions articulate the necessity of improved practices to respect and uplift Indigenous knowledge in biodiversity research and stewardship. Ignace et al. (2023) articulate researchers’ responsibility to uphold Indigenous rights by connecting research to UNDRIP. Wong et al. (2020) provide calls to action for biodiversity researchers to honor Indigenous peoples and knowledge in practice. Reid et al. (2024) describe the growing number of institutions, organizations, governments, and funding agencies that share commitments to building ethical and equitable research relationships and articulate the need for guidance on how to conduct this research (especially from Indigenous authors). These articles offer high level inspiration for where scholars and practitioners can situate themselves in a rapidly changing landscape.

We identify tangible steps or Action Items that can support the conduct of biodiversity research that seeks to bridge knowledge systems in good and ethical ways. We connect actions to an established literature about values and settings (Rathwell et al. 2015, Reano 2020). By keeping values at the center of our approach, we contribute to a growing literature on how to do research in a good way with Indigenous communities and collaborators (David-Chavez et al. 2020, Wong et al. 2020, Littlechild and Sutherland 2021, David-Chavez et al. 2024, Menzies et al. 2024, Reid et al. 2024). Our process supported an in-depth consideration of values not normally top of mind for biodiversity scholars. For example, genetics research studies have not traditionally prioritized research being of service to communities and holding multi-logicality by exploring the philosophy of knowledge along the full research cycle and beyond. Our analysis results in a tangible list of Action Items with examples from exemplar research publications in the field of terrestrial ecology. The tables of Action Items can function as a reference list of accountability metrics for academics and practitioners who want to engage with both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems in good and ethical ways. Although engaging with these Action Items is a good starting point, how to collaborate in a good way in any specific context will only be determined by learning from, and listening to, Indigenous research partners.

We also contribute a novel multidisciplinary methodological approach. We combine quantitative and qualitative research methods with creative and collaborative methods. Our process is depicted in Figure 1. The carefully crafted steps of our analysis include quantitative statistical methods, the design of an analytical framework, discursive and artistic methods, as well as both inductive and deductive analytical techniques. Our approach can function to guide scholars and practitioners exploring mixed-methods and collaborative multi- and transdisciplinary approaches (e.g., Lang et al. 2012, Biggs et al. 2021, Lawrence et al. 2022).

In offering a visual depiction of A Growing Tree we create an opportunity for researchers and practitioners to hold space for quiet contemplation, while reflecting our practical results in poetic and holistic ways (Nardon and Hari 2021, Steele et al. 2022). Metaphors can create a structural frame, to hold multiple information points together (Carpenter 2008, Thibodeau and Boroditsky 2011), in this case four Action Platforms and 26 Action Items. By evoking emotion and imagination, metaphors demonstrate efficiency in putting knowledge into practice (Steele et al. 2022). Metaphor is a common way to encapsulate data in storytelling and the arts in Indigenous communities (Lavallée 2009, Martin 2012, Kimmerer 2013, Rathwell 2020). Sharing our results with a metaphor is a way to demonstrate our respect for this approach to knowledge sharing. The metaphor is a visual tool and framework to reflect on if/how one is approaching bridging knowledge systems in ways that connect to each of the platforms. Our metaphor is meant to create a visual memory based on the life cycle of a tree. Practitioners and scholars can visualize a tree when approaching work with Indigenous collaborators and use it as a guide to ensure all aspects of A Growing Tree are approached with thoughtfulness and sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

We offer 26 Action Items and A Growing Tree metaphor as a framework and set of accountability metrics (i.e., the twenty-six Action Items), for scholars and practitioners to start asking questions about how they will operationalize bridging knowledge systems in line with the shared values of Indigenous research frameworks and inclusive of a diversity of settings. We share a novel methodological approach that weaves qualitative, quantitative, and creative methods in a sequence that optimizes their respective strengths. Our contributions can support Western-trained scientists and practitioners to consider alternatives to the dominant epistemic assumptions in research governance and practice. As depicted by A Growing Tree, we acknowledge that our framework and Action Items are a starting point, and it is through nurturing relationships with Indigenous peoples and communities that appropriate actions and ways of embodying values in practice will be learned for any specific context.

LITERATURE CITED

Absolon, K. E. 2011. Kaandossiwin: how we come to know. Fernwood, Black Point, Nova Scotia, Canada..

Alexander, S. M., J. F. Provencher, D. A. Henri, L. Nanayakkara, J. J. Taylor, A. Berberi, J. I. Lloren, J. T. Johnson, M. Ballard, and S. J. Cooke. 2021. Bridging Indigenous and Western sciences in freshwater research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 2(3):e12085. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12085

Alexander, S. M., J. F. Provencher, D. A. Henri, J. J. Taylor, J. I. Lloren, L. Nanayakkara, J. T. Johnson, and S. J. Cooke. 2019. Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Environmental Evidence 8:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0181-3

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21(3):995-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006

Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2:331-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8

Beaudoin, J. M., L. Bouthillier, J. Bulkan, H. Nelson, R. Trosper, and S. Wyatt. 2016. What does “First Nation deep roots in the forests” mean? Identification of principles and objectives for promoting forest-based development. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 46(4):508-519. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0170

Berg, B. 1995. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Second edition. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Biggs, R., A. De Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski, and M. Schlüter. 2021. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339

Bronen, R., D. Pollock, J. Overbeck, D. Stevens, S. Natali, and C. Maio. 2020. Usteq: integrating indigenous knowledge and social and physical sciences to coproduce knowledge and support community-based adaptation. Polar Geography 43(2-3):188-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2019.1679271

Bronk, K. C., P. E. King, and M. K. Matsuba. 2013. An introduction to exemplar research: a definition, rationale, and conceptual issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2013(142):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20045

Buxton, R. T., J. R. Bennett, A. J. Reid, C. Shulman, S. J. Cooke, C. M. Francis, E. A. Nyboer, G. Pritchard, A. D. Binley, S. Avery-Gomm, et al. 2021. Key information needs to move from knowledge to action for biodiversity conservation in Canada. Biological Conservation 256:108983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108983

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2022. TriCouncil Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Carpenter, J. 2008. Metaphors in qualitative research: shedding light or casting shadows? Research in Nursing & Health 31(3):274-282. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20253

Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community‐based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer/Géographe Canadien 56(2):160-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x

Chiblow, S. 2021. An Anishinaabe research methodology that utilizes Indigenous intelligence as a conceptual framework exploring humanity’s relationship to N’bi (Water). International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211058017

Constitution Act. 1982. s 35. Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

David-Chavez, D. M., and M. C. Gavin. 2018. A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters 13(12):123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300

David-Chavez, D., M. Gavin, N. Ortiz, S. Valdez, and S. Carroll. 2024. A values-centered relational science model: supporting Indigenous rights and reconciliation in research. Ecology and Society 29(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14768-290211

David-Chavez, D. M., S. Valdez, J. B. Estevez, C. Meléndez Martínez, A. A. Garcia, K. Josephs, and A. Troncoso. 2020. Community-based (rooted) research for regeneration: understanding benefits, barriers, and resources for Indigenous education and research. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 16(3):220-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180120952896

Dawson, N. M., B. Coolsaet, E. J. Sterling, R. Loveridge, N. D. Gross-Camp, S. Wongbusarakum, K. K. Sangha, L. M. Scherl, H. Phuong Phan, N. Zafra-Calvo, W. G. Lavey, P. Byakagaba, C. J. Idrobo, A. Chenet, N. J. Bennett, S. Mansourian, and F. J. Rosado-May. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society 26(3):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319

Ermine, W. 2007. The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal 6:193-203.

Eisner, W. R., J. Jelacic, C. J. Cuomo, C. Kim, K. M. Hinkel, and D. Del Alba. 2012. Producing an indigenous knowledge Web GIS for Arctic Alaska communities: challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Transactions in GIS 16(1):17-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01291.x

Finfgeld-Connett, D. 2018. A guide to qualitative meta-synthesis. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351212793

First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). 2024. The First Nations Principles of OCAP®. FNIGC, Akwesasne, Ontario, Canada. https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/#:~:text=How%20does%20OCAP%C2%AE%20apply,and%20development%20of%20their%20culture

Henri, D. A., J. F. Provencher, E. Bowles, J. J Taylor, J. Steel, C. Chelick, J. N. Popp, S. J. Cooke, T. Rytwinski, D. McGregor, A. T. Ford, and S. M. Alexander. 2021. Weaving Indigenous knowledge systems and Western sciences in terrestrial research, monitoring and management in Canada: a protocol for a systematic map. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 2(2):e12057. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12057

Hill, Sr, R. W., and D. Coleman. 2019. The Two Row Wampum-covenant chain tradition as a guide for indigenous-university research partnerships. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 19(5):339-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708618809138

Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02270-120234

Housty, W. G., A. Noson, G. W. Scoville, J. Boulanger, R. M. Jeo, C. T. Darimont, and C. E. Filardi. 2014. Grizzly bear monitoring by the Heiltsuk people as a crucible for First Nation conservation practice. Ecology and Society 19(2):70. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06668-190270

Ibbett, H., and S. Brittain. 2020. Conservation publications and their provisions to protect research participants. Conservation Biology 34(1):80-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13337

Ignace, L., L. Burton, S. Mynott, M. Meehan, E. Olson, J. Steel, J. Ojeda, S. Harper, L. Ramirez, D. Baker, et al. 2023. Researchers’ responsibility to uphold Indigenous rights. Science 381(6654):129-131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4470

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). 2018. National Inuit Strategy on Research. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Nunavut Research Institute (NRI). 2007. Negotiating research relationships with Inuit communities: a guide for researchers. S. Nickels, J. Shirley, and G. Laidler, editors. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and Nunavut Research Institute, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada.

Johnson, J. T., and C. Madge. 2016. Empowering methodologies: feminist and indigenous approaches. Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography 4:76-94.

Joseph, R. P. 2018. 21 things you may not know about the Indian Act: helping Canadians make reconciliation with indigenous peoples a reality. Indigenous Relations Press, Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada.

Kerr, J., and K. Adamov Ferguson. 2021. Ethical relationality and Indigenous storywork principles as methodology: addressing settler-colonial divides in inner-city educational research. Qualitative Inquiry 27(6):706-715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420971864

Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7:25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for environmental sustainability: redefining our relationship with nature. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vm557

Latulippe, N., and N. Klenk. 2020. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42:7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010

Lavallée, L. F. 2009. Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Lawrence, M. G., S. Williams, P. Nanz, and O. Renn. 2022. Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth 5(1):44-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010

Lemelin, R. H., M. Dowsley, B. Walmark, F. Siebel, L. Bird, G. Hunter, T. Myles, M. Mack, M. Gull, M. Kakekaspan, The Washaho First Nation at Fort Severn, and The Weenusk First Nation at Peawanuck. 2010. Wabusk of the Omushkegouk: Cree-polar bear (Ursus maritimus) interactions in northern Ontario. Human Ecology 38:803-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9355-x

Littlechild, D., and C. Sutherland. 2021. Enacting and operationalizing ethical space and two-eyed seeing in Indigenous protected and conserved areas and Crown protected and conserved areas. Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Ljubicic, G., S. Okpakok, S. Robertson, and R. Mearns. 2018a. Uqsuqtuurmiut inuita tuktumi qaujimaningit (Inuit knowledge of caribou from Gjoa Haven, Nunavut): collaborative research contributions to co-management efforts. Polar Record 54(3):213-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247418000372

Ljubicic, G., S. Okpakok, S. Robertson, and R. Mearns. 2018b. Inuit approaches to naming and distinguishing caribou: considering language, place, and homeland toward improved co-management. Arctic 71(3):309-333. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4734

Martin, K. 2012. Stories in a new skin: approaches to Inuit literature. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780887554261

Maxwell, S. L., V. Cazalis, N. Dudley, M. Hoffmann, A. S. Rodrigues, S. Stolton, P. Visconti, S. Woodley, N. Kingston, E. Lewis, et al. 2020. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586(7828):217-227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z

McGregor, D. 2009. Linking traditional knowledge and environmental practice in Ontario. Journal of Canadian Studies 43(3):69-100. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.43.3.69

McGregor, D. 2018. From 'decolonized' to reconciliation research in Canada: drawing from indigenous research paradigms. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 17(3):810-831.

Menzies, A. K., E. Bowles, D. McGregor, A. T. Ford, and J. N. Popp. 2024. Sharing Indigenous values, practices and priorities as guidance for transforming human-environment relationships. People and Nature 6(5):2109-2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10707

Métis National Council (MNC). 2024. The Métis Nation climate change strategy: Part 2. MNC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Nardon, L., and A. Hari. 2021. Sensemaking through metaphors: the role of imaginative metaphor elicitation in constructing new understandings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211019589

Polfus, J. L., K. Heinemeyer, M. Hebblewhite, and Taku River Tlingit First Nation. 2014. Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and Western science woodland caribou habitat models. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(1):112-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.643

Polfus, J. L., M. Manseau, D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha, F. Andrew, L. Andrew, C. F. Klütsch, K. Rice, and P. Wilson. 2016. Łeghágots' enetę (learning together): the importance of indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological variation. Ecology and Society 21(2):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08284-210218

Polfus, J. L., D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha, F. Andrew, L. Andrew, B. G. Merkle, K. Rice, and M. Manseau. 2017. Creative convergence: exploring biocultural diversity through art. Ecology and Society 22(2):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08711-220204

Popp, J. N., P. Priadka, and C. Kozmik. 2019. The rise of moose co-management and integration of Indigenous knowledge. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24(2):159-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1545953

Povinelli, E. A. 2016. Geontologies: a requiem to late liberalism. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822373810

Rathwell, K. J. 2020. “She is Transforming:” Inuit artworks reflect a cultural response to Arctic sea ice and climate change. Arctic 73(1). https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic69945

Rathwell, K. J., D. Armitage, and F. Berkes. 2015. Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental commons: a typology of settings. International Journal of the Commons 9(2):851-880. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.584

Rathwell, K. J., and G. D. Peterson. 2012. Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: a social-ecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations. Ecology and Society 17(2):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04810-170224

Reano, D. 2020. Using Indigenous research frameworks in the multiple contexts of research, teaching, mentoring, and leading. Qualitative Report 25(11):3902-3926. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4317

Reid, A. J., L. E. Eckert, J. F. Lane, N. Young, S. G. Hinch, C. T. Darimont, S. J. Cooke, N. C. Ban, and A. Marshall. 2021. “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries 22(2):243-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516

Reid, A. J., D. A. McGregor, A. K. Menzies, L. E. Eckert, C. M. Febria, and J. N. Popp. 2024. Ecological research ‘in a good way’ means ethical and equitable relationships with Indigenous peoples and lands. Nature Ecology & Evolution 8(4):595-598. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02309-0

Reo, N. J., K. P. Whyte, D. McGregor, M. A. Smith, and J. F. Jenkins. 2017. Factors that support Indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 13(2):58-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117701028

Riedlinger, D., and F. Berkes. 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record 37(203):315-328. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247400017058

Saldaña, J. 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Fourth edition. SAGE, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Shaw, E.L., V. S. Gagnon, and E. Ravindran. 2023. Seasons of research with/by/as the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Journal of Great Lakes Research 49:S32-S45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.04.007

Steele, R., J. Baird, and B. Davies. 2022. Using metaphors to make research findings meaningful. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 54(2):99-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621221085555

Tengö, M., E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

Thibodeau, P. H., and L. Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: the role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782

Thompson, K. L., T. C. Lantz, and N. C. Ban. 2020. A review of Indigenous knowledge and participation in environmental monitoring. Ecology and Society 25(2):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11503-250210

United Nations General Assembly. 2007. Resolution 61/295, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). A/RES/61/295.

Verran, H. 2013. Engagements between disparate knowledge traditions: toward doing difference generatively and in good faith. Pages 141-161 in L. Green, editor. Contested ecologies: dialogues in the South on nature and knowledge. HSRC, Cape Town, South Africa.

Vowel, C. 2016. Indigenous writes: a guide to First Nations, Metis, & Inuit issues in Canada. Portage & Main, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Walsh, D., and S. Downe. 2005. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(2):204-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x

Whyte, K. P., J. P. Brewer II, and J. T. Johnson. 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11:25-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

Wilcox, A. A. E., J. F. Provencher, D. A. Henri, S. M. Alexander, J. J. Taylor, S. J. Cooke, P. J. Thomas, and L. R. Johnson. 2023. Braiding Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences in the Alberta oil sands region: A systematic review. Facets 8:1-32. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0052

Wilson, K. J., T. Bell, A. Arreak, B. Koonoo, D. Angnatsiak, and G. J. Ljubicic. 2020. Changing the role of non-Indigenous research partners in practice to support Inuit self-determination in research. Arctic Science 6(3):127-153. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2019-0021

Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Wong, C., K. Ballegooyen, L. Ignace, M. J. Johnson, and H. Swanson. 2020. Towards reconciliation: 10 calls to action to natural scientists working in Canada. Facets 5(1):769-783. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0005

Yua, E., J. Raymond-Yakoubian, R. Aluaq Daniel, and C. Behe. 2022. A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society 27(1):34.