Highlighting the potential of peer-led workshops in training early-career researchers for conducting research with Indigenous communities

For decades, Indigenous voices have been calling for changes to research approaches in Canada that exclude, marginalize, or appropriate Indigenous knowledge. Many Indigenous communities have been asking for a greater say in decisions about research priorities and ethical methodologies as well as data storage, interpretation, and sharing (Hall 2005; NRI and ITK 2007; Wilson 2008; Kovach 2009; GC 2014; INQ 2017; ITK 2018). In this context, awareness of the importance of collaborative approaches to research with Indigenous communities is increasing within many Canadian research institutions (Castleden et al. 2012; Adams et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2015) resulting in a movement away from conducting research on or in Indigenous communities to conducting research with communities (Tobias et al. 2013; Vogel 2015). A fundamental step toward integrating collaborative approaches into mainstream research is training university-based researchers to work with Indigenous communities in Canada.

Community-collaborative research can be defined as an overarching term that includes a continuum of different research approaches, which “involves engaging local communities and individuals in the research process with the goal of sharing or co-generating knowledge to understand complex problems” (Tondu et al. 2014). This continuum of approaches includes science communication and outreach, community consultation, community-based monitoring, community-engaged research, and participatory research with co-production of knowledge. The nature and extent of appropriate community participation can vary depending on several factors, including the research questions and goals, as “not all types of northern research will require, or inspire, the same level of community involvement” (NRI and ITK 2007, p. 10). Collaborative methodologies remain under-represented in some natural science disciplines (Brunet et al. 2014a; Johnson et al. 2015), and some projects may offer fewer opportunities for local involvement such as studies conducted far from communities using remote data loggers or focusing on noncharismatic species (NRI and ITK 2007; Gagnon and Berteaux 2009).

Collaborative research with meaningful community engagement can have positive outcomes for both researchers and Indigenous community members, including improved quality and legitimacy of research, capacity and trust building, and respectful integration of local knowledge (Jack et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2013; Tobias et al. 2013; Brunet et al. 2014a; Mantyka-Pringle et al. 2017). However, developing and implementing long-term and meaningful engagement can be difficult. Challenges experienced by researchers include limited funding and time, academic constraints, and insufficient professional recognition for the efforts involved in collaborating (Koster et al. 2012; Tobias et al. 2013; Adams et al. 2014; Brunet et al. 2014b; Ayre et al. 2018). Differences in worldviews between Indigenous community members and non-Indigenous researchers can also yield divergent approaches to, and expectations of, collaborative research. Negative outcomes may arise during collaborative research, such as the perpetuation of power imbalances, breaches of community customs, and miscommunication about ethical guidelines (Mitchell and Baker 2005; Koster et al. 2012; Ayre et al. 2018). Skills in cross-cultural engagement are therefore essential for conducting collaborative research with positive outcomes (Adams et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2015).

Early-career researchers (ECRs) face additional challenges than those faced by more established researchers. ECRs need to be productive and publish within the time span of a graduate degree (2–5 years) and may be required to do so with smaller research budgets and more personal financial insecurity (Tondu et al. 2014). When resources, support, and incentives are lacking, ECRs may engage with Indigenous communities chiefly as a result of personal ethics and values (Brunet et al. 2014b). While useful ethical guidelines for conducting community-collaborative work do exist (NRI and ITK 2007; INQ 2017; ITK 2018), ECRs may be limited in their ability to apply these recommendations as they typically conduct their research as part of pre-established projects. For instance, OCAP™ (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) is a broadly recognized standard for issues of access and ownership of research data with First Nations in Canada (First Nations Information Governance Centre 2014). However, ECRs cannot always address issues around data ownership when they are working as part of pre-established projects where they have limited control over study design and data sharing. Many ECRs in the natural sciences are also not aware of these existing ethical guidelines, as training on conducting community-collaborative research with Indigenous communities is rarely included in natural science curricula (Bousquet 2012; Tondu et al. 2014).

Without formal training, many ECRs are self-taught and must learn through trial and error when carrying out collaborative research with Indigenous communities. In a 2014 survey of Arctic ECRs from 22 countries, the majority of respondents reported wanting to involve more Indigenous peoples in their research, yet only half felt that they had the basic knowledge to do so. In the same survey, natural scientists rated their knowledge on conducting research with northern Indigenous communities much lower than social scientists (Sjöberg et al. 2019). Opportunities do currently exist for Canadian researchers (including ECRs) who want to develop skills for working with Indigenous communities, including massive online courses and courses on research ethics, such as the Carleton University Institute on the Ethics of Research with Indigenous peoples. However, formal training for students is rare and courses offered outside universities can be prohibitively expensive for ECRs. As Indigenous communities call for a greater say in research, it is essential to improve training that provides tools and approaches for working collaboratively with Indigenous partners to the future generation of researchers (Tondu et al. 2014).

Peer-led workshops can be part of the solution, as they are an effective training technique that enhances interactivity, engagement, motivation, and student learning (Preszler 2009; Deakin et al. 2012; Ouellet Dallaire et al. 2018). Here, we present two peer-led workshops entitled “Intercultural Indigenous Workshops” that were held in 2016 and 2017 in Montréal, Québec, Canada, with the aim of preparing ECRs to work together with Indigenous communities. Specific workshop objectives were to: (i) cultivate awareness about Indigenous cultures, histories, and languages; (ii) promote sharing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing; and (iii) foster approaches and explore tools for conducting community-collaborative research. In this perspective, we discuss the design, implementation, and outcomes of our peer-led workshops in relation to the three objectives described above. We also explore challenges and ways of improving this type of training for ECRs conducting collaborative research with Indigenous communities.

The authors of this paper all identify as ECRs. ECRs are defined here as undergraduate and graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and new principal investigators. The authors include six workshop organizers and a government-based researcher who participated in the 2016 workshop as an invited speaker and provided mentorship to the organizers (D.A. Henri). All authors identify as female researchers; two are Métis and the others are non-Indigenous. We acknowledge that our own perspectives and worldviews will have influenced the interpretations presented here.

In referring to researchers working with Indigenous communities in this article we include researchers who work directly with Indigenous partners as well as those whose projects take place in (or near) Indigenous communities. This article seeks to address issues in training for ECRs whose projects are situated all along a continuum of community involvement in research, from science outreach to participatory research. Indigenous community is used here to describe a group of people with a shared cultural identity, traditions, and ways of life, which has the capacity to act or express itself as a collective (GC 2014). Indigenous communities can be territorial, organizational, or a community of interest (ACUNS 1982).

In this section, we describe the two Intercultural Indigenous Workshops held in 2016 and 2017. These two workshops were organized by volunteer committees composed of five to six ECRs in the natural sciences (representing three universities in Québec, Canada) and one university employee. The committees organized the workshops because of a perceived lack of training for both themselves and their peers on conducting community-collaborative research. The workshops were focused on ECRs because they are typically more involved in fieldwork and in the day-to-day interactions with Indigenous communities than senior researchers. Faculty members aided in securing funding but were not directly involved in workshop organization. Both events were publicized using departmental and research-group mailing lists, posters at universities, word of mouth, and social media. Funding was obtained from grants and participant registration fees. This section will provide a brief description of the workshops and quantitative information on workshop participation. More details on workshop schedules and budgets, round-table discussion structure and questions, a summary of the 2016 participatory research interactive activity, and post-workshop survey questions are provided in Supplementary Material 1.

In April 2016, a 1-d workshop entitled “Atelier autochtone interculturel: Savoirs scientifiques et locaux en recherche nordique” (“Intercultural Indigenous Workshop: scientific and local knowledge in northern research”) was held in French at the Université de Montréal. The morning consisted of hour-long presentations by invited facilitators who discussed: (i) how to foster collaboration between researchers and Indigenous community members in Québec, (ii) an Inuit perspective on the history of researchers working in the North, and (iii) Indigenous cultures and languages in Canada. The afternoon consisted of a round-table discussion on how to encourage cooperation, knowledge transfer, and the sharing of perspectives between scientific and northern Indigenous communities. Round-table participants included two university professors, two university students, and one postdoctoral fellow; one of whom identified as Indigenous. After the round-table discussion, an interactive activity consisting of small group discussions on participatory research was facilitated by a government researcher. This session led to the creation of a document summarizing the group discussions and providing resources for ECRs (see Supplementary Material 1). The workshop ended with an evening networking event featuring traditional food tasting and a performance by Inuit throat singers.

In November 2017, a 2-d workshop entitled “Intercultural Indigenous Workshop: Sharing perspectives and experiences of research in Canada’s North” was held at McGill University. The first day consisted of a full-day workshop on building cultural awareness of Indigenous cultures and was led by an Indigenous facilitator. Canada’s historic relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis were explored during this first day. In the evening, a public event was organized that included two keynote presentations and a round-table discussion. The keynote facilitators, one of whom identified as Indigenous, spoke about merging traditional and scientific ecological knowledge and about the importance of youth education in Indigenous communities. The theme for the round-table discussion was “Sharing perspectives and experiences of research in Canada’s North.” Round-table participants included a university professor, a postdoctoral fellow, a special advisor on Aboriginal initiatives, an Indigenous artist, the co-founder of an Indigenous organization, and a doctoral student; three of these participants identified as Indigenous. The round-table discussion was followed by a networking event that included food from a local Indigenous caterer, an Inuit throat singing performance, and jewellery sold by Indigenous artisans. The second day of the workshop was an interactive, arts-based, experiential workshop focused more specifically on the history of First Nations and led by an Indigenous facilitator. The goal of the experiential workshop was to explore First Nations’ historical, political, and social issues by re-enacting historical scenarios and by using theatrical techniques. An Indigenous Elder was present to offer guidance.

The 2016 workshop brought together 32 participants from eight fields of research who were affiliated with nine different universities in the province of Québec, Canada (Table 1). The majority of participants were female graduate students (>60%) in the natural sciences (Table 2). In 2017, the first full-day workshop involved 48 participants from 24 disciplines who were affiliated with 10 Canadian universities, as well as representatives from the federal government and an Indigenous organization (Tables 1 and 2). Overall, the participants came from a greater diversity of research fields and institutions in 2017. The 2017 public evening event attracted 92 people, with an additional 23 people registered via webinar. The experiential workshop in 2017 had 15 participants (14 female) who were also mostly in the natural sciences. Similar to 2016, the dominant group of participants in 2017 were female graduate students (>70%) in the natural sciences (Table 2). Fewer participants stated that they had previous experience working in northern research in 2017 compared to 2016 (33% had worked in northern research in 2017 vs. 53% in 2016). In a recent study, female ECRs rated their knowledge of Indigenous peoples more highly and found more benefits in involving Indigenous peoples in their research than their male counterparts (Sjöberg et al. 2019). These trends may have contributed to the predominance of female natural scientists at our workshops.

The organizing committees collected post-workshop feedback through a variety of methods from participants, facilitators, and organizers. Feedback focused on the workshop design, implementation, and overall impressions. Quantitative data were compiled from attendance records for participants on the following topics: (i) affiliation to university/department or other organization, (ii) role within university/department or other organization (e.g., student, faculty, employee), and (iii) gender. Gender was assigned based on first names and verified with gender name lists by country (Larivière et al. 2013). Members of the organizing committees (n = 13) provided oral and (or) written feedback (via email) on their overall impressions of the workshops. Facilitators were sent questions via email (n = 8) or asked questions via semi-structured, oral interviews that were transcribed afterwards (n = 1) with informed consent (see Supplementary Material 1 for interview questions).

After the workshops, all participants received email invitations to anonymously complete a workshop evaluation survey, which included 9–10 multiple-choice and short-answer questions. The overall aim was to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the workshops (see Supplementary Material 1 for participant survey questions). We received 19 responses in 2016 and 18 in 2017. Categorical and open-ended questions covered participant opinions on various aspects of the workshops, including: schedule, workshop themes, presentations, and networking events. Categorical questions included two different scales to measure appreciation: (i) “Very Poor”, “Poor”, “Average”, “Good”, or “Very Good” and (ii) “Not Useful”, “Somewhat Useful”, “Useful”, or “Very Useful.” In total, 100% of organizers, 53% of facilitators and 46% of participants (who both registered and attended a workshop) provided feedback.

We used mixed methods to describe and discuss perspectives from participants, facilitators, and organizers on their workshop experiences. We adapted a framework from Cervero (1984) to use four workshop evaluation categories: (i) workshop design and implementation, (ii) learner participation, (iii) learner satisfaction, and (iv) workshop outcomes (Fig. 1). Learner participation was evaluated using descriptive statistics and qualitative description (Sandelowski 2000); all other categories were explored with qualitative description. Two authors independently coded the qualitative information available (interview transcripts, surveys, emails, debriefing notes) based on each of the evaluation categories from the Cervero (1984) framework. Through thematic analysis, the categories were subsequently organized into fundamental and interrelated themes that best reflected the main ideas raised by the participants, facilitators, and organizers. This paper explores five themes associated with workshop format and outcomes: (i) scope and interdisciplinarity, (ii) Indigenous representation, (iii) workshop environment, (iv) skillful moderation, and (v) workshop outcomes (Fig. 1). The discussion reflects on how each of these themes contributed to workshop success, which was evaluated based on the three workshop objectives.

For this type of workshop discussion and evaluation, ethics approval was not required. The authors consulted with two university research ethics boards at McGill University and the Université de Montréal (G.A. MacMillan and M. Falardeau, personal communication, 2018). Both research ethics boards concluded that, as per Section 2.5 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 2014, p. 18), “Program evaluation activities, and performance reviews […] do not constitute research for the purposes of this Policy, and do not fall within the scope of REB [research ethics board] review.” We therefore incorporated anonymous participant feedback into this article as the purpose of this perspective was to evaluate workshop success. We did not obtain formal consent from workshop participants as we could not retroactively seek their consent from anonymous survey responses. Furthermore, we sought informed consent from all facilitators before incorporating their feedback. Participating facilitators were informed that the goal of the semi-structured interviews was to collect feedback about their workshop experience to be used in this manuscript. All interviewed facilitators gave written or oral consent for their feedback (and quotes) to be used in this paper (see Supplementary Material 1: Semi-Structured Interview Questions for Facilitators, Question 7).

For the most part, the workshops were effectively implemented and well-received by participants and facilitators. There was an overall high degree of satisfaction; the majority of survey participants rated their overall workshop appreciation as either “Good” or “Very Good” (100% in 2016, 90% in 2017). Most survey participants also reported that the workshops were either “Very Useful” or “Useful” to their research (72% in 2016 and 67% in 2017). Adjectives frequently used to describe the workshop by participants included “excellent”, “well-organized”, “interesting”, “pertinent”, and “useful.” All invited facilitators who provided feedback shared their appreciation for the workshops and agreed to participate in future editions. One non-Indigenous facilitator in 2016 acknowledged the historical lack of training on these subjects and highlighted the current need for such workshops (see above quote). While general appreciation was high for both workshops, participant satisfaction for some activities was mixed. In this discussion, we describe the five themes that emerged from the analysis and evaluate the success of our workshop by relating these themes back to our three workshop objectives. These objectives were to support ECR training for conducting research with Indigenous communities by: (i) cultivating awareness of Indigenous cultures, histories, and languages; (ii) promoting sharing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing; and (iii) fostering approaches and explore tools for conducting collaborative research with Indigenous communities.

Although peer-led learning is not a substitute for formal teaching methods, it can be an effective tool to help ECRs develop “reflective practice and critical self-awareness” while being a pragmatic response to limited resources at universities (Boud 2001, p. 11). We propose that peer-led workshops integrating Indigenous representation, interdisciplinary discussions, safe physical and cultural spaces, skillful moderation, and emotional guidance can be useful to ECRs who work with Indigenous communities. While peer-led workshops cannot replace the invaluable experience gained through working directly with Indigenous communities, they can be extremely helpful to ECRs who are starting their degrees and who have little or no hands-on experience in communities. Peer-led workshops may also be useful to more experienced ECRs by building a community of practice where ECRs can share their experiences and learn through interacting with their peers. This type of training provides ECRs with a place to reflect on how research is conducted in Canada, supporting Indigenous calls for inclusive research practices and, ultimately, for the decolonization of research (Fig. 3).

One important question remains after our evaluation of these workshops: can raising cultural awareness, promoting the sharing of diverse perspectives, and teaching collaborative research approaches lead to measurable change in research practices? As expressed in the above quote, attending a 1- or 2-d event may not be sufficient to meaningfully change the way ECRs conduct their research. It is likely that regardless of intentions, ECRs will still struggle to implement behavioural changes when faced with academic demands that make engagement with Indigenous communities challenging (Beagan 2003). Peer-led workshops are therefore an important but insufficient step towards more collaborative research practices in Canada. Having ongoing, accessible, and academically recognized training for all researchers that brings Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants together can help us challenge current perspectives and make fundamental changes to how we conduct research in Canada. Although it may be unsettling, ECRs and other researchers must let down their guard and learn from different ways of knowing—for the betterment of research processes in Canada.

We acknowledge that the land on which we hosted the two Intercultural Indigenous Workshops is the traditional and unceded territory of the Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk), a place that has long served as a site of meeting and exchange amongst nations. We are grateful for the participation of all workshop facilitators and participants. Heartfelt thanks to our workshop co-organizers: Geneviève Dubois, Élise Morin, Cécile de Sérigny, and Dana Simon. Thanks to Ariane Petitclerc for her graphic design work. Thank you to David Loutfi for his assistance with qualitative data analysis and proofreading. Thanks to Beatriz Osorio for assistance for the organization of the 2017 workshop and to the Fédération des Associations Étudiantes du Campus de l’Université de Montréal, Projets d’Initiatives Étudiantes (Université de Montréal), CREATE Mine of Knowledge (National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC), and McGill North for providing workshop funding. Thank you to the Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Canada’s National Council of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists, and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists for providing website support, a webinar platform, and for helping to promote the events. Many thanks to Kitikmeot Foods, Kwe Kwe Gourmet, and Chef Swaneige Traiteur for providing food and catering during workshops. Scholarships and grants were provided to the authors by NSERC (Alexander Graham Bell, Vanier), Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies, the W. Garfield Weston Foundation, Richard J. Schmeelk Canada, Canada First Research Excellence Fund Sentinel North, CREATE Environmental Innovation (NSERC), the Northern Scientific Training Program, and the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response network. Our thanks to three anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments helped improve this manuscript.