Learning from past collaborative experiences: setting a pathway for natural sciences and engineering researchers to support Indigenous-driven aims
Publication: FACETS
13 March 2025
Abstract
In efforts to contribute towards reconciliation, some researchers have shown increased interest in collaborative work with Indigenous Peoples. However, those in technical fields, such as the natural sciences and engineering, are not traditionally trained in how to carry out Indigenous-driven research. This study learned from the successes and challenges of past technical research collaborations to better understand how these researchers can act as stronger allies. Qualitative interviews were carried out with five members of Indigenous communities and 35 researchers. The results showed diverse experiences and the need for more collaborative frameworks and supportive institutional environments within the natural sciences and engineering. Findings highlighted the wide range of issues to be considered in such work, grouped into (1) assessing personal preparation and mindset; (2) building and maintaining relationships; (3) community-aligned benefit; (4) practical and financial considerations; and (5) knowledge sharing and communication. In addition, participants identified institutional-level factors that could help (e.g., mentorship) or hinder (e.g., current recognition structures in many technical fields) efforts to carry out Indigenous-driven technical research. These results may stimulate and contribute to necessary work in the natural sciences and engineering on processes for equitable and thoughtful engagement with members of Indigenous communities to support Indigenous-driven research.
Introduction
Since the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015), many natural sciences and engineering researchers and institutions have increased efforts to support reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. This has included, for instance, commitments by Canada's main funder of natural sciences and engineering research (NSERC 2022), university-level strategies (University of Toronto 2017; University of Victoria 2017), and a growing number of collaborations between these researchers and some of the many and diverse Indigenous communities in Canada (for example, Kobluk et al. 2021; Codrington et al. 2022; Yarchuk et al. 2024). Within this diversity of both Indigenous Peoples and natural sciences and engineering researchers, some may find shared values (e.g., equity, sustainability) as well as common interests in areas such as climate change, conservation, healthy housing, and ocean management (Wong et al. 2020; Ocean Networks Canada 2021; IOF 2022; Dimayuga et al. 2023; Lyeo et al. 2024). The potential strengths from engaging with Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Western natural sciences and engineering in mutually respectful ways have been discussed in frameworks such as Two-Eyed Seeing and The Three Sisters (Bartlett et al. 2012; Kimmerer 2013), and have begun to be demonstrated in practice (Reid et al. 2021).
While increased interest in reconciliation from the natural sciences and engineering is a positive trend, some Indigenous leaders have voiced concern about pressures on their communities as a growing number of researchers seek to collaborate and partner (Canada Research Coordinating Committee 2019). In addition, research has a colonial history of exploitative practices, which has led to distrust of research among many Indigenous Peoples (Smith 2021). The fields of natural sciences and engineering have also been responsible for the degradation of lands and cultures of Indigenous Peoples through large-scale infrastructure projects, resource extraction, and colonial land and wildlife management policies (Cowen 2020; Snook et al. 2020). There are still cases today where natural sciences and engineering research is carried out without appropriate respect for Indigenous rights or for the benefits brought when members of Indigenous communities lead and collaborate in research (Wong et al. 2020). In this paper, we use the term “respectful research” to denote research practices with Indigenous Peoples that value and prioritize the experiences and perceptions of the research process by those Peoples themselves. In respectful research, partnerships are emphasized and the communities feel that the research aligns with their cultures, worldviews, and priorities (Wilson 2008; Dimayuga et al. 2023).
For guidance on how to carry out respectful research with Indigenous Peoples, there is a growing body of literature from Indigenous scholars. However, this is based primarily in the social and health sciences. This includes the work of Smith (2021), who argues that Indigenous cultural values and practices must be centred in Indigenous-focused research. It also encompasses the writings of Wilson (2008) on research as a sacred ceremonial process that understands and honours relationships and relational accountability. Relational accountability refers to care and responsibility towards research collaborators and communities, as well as to relationships with the natural world and future generations (Wilson 2008). Research ethics protocols provide further guidance, including those of national scope (CIHR et al. 2022), and those developed by Indigenous communities and organizations to be specific to local context and values (Hayward et al. 2021). However, Wong et al. (2020) argue that many natural scientists may be unaware of this guidance or fail to see the need if they are working in Indigenous territories but not directly in contact with the people who live there. The same may be argued for the field of engineering, in which students are primarily trained in technical areas often without historical context or understanding of Indigenous, cross-cultural, empathetic, or participatory approaches. Engineers Canada recently highlighted the need to create cultural safety for Indigenous students and faculty in engineering programs at Canadian universities; a field in which it is estimated that only 0.73% identify as Indigenous Peoples (Wolf and Martinussen 2022). In addition, a recent literature review found few technical studies that reported on respectful research practices when collaborating with Indigenous Peoples, and a general lack of detail in how collaborations were carried out among those that were reported (Dimayuga et al. 2023).
It is clear that commitment to reconciliation from researchers and institutions within the natural sciences and engineering needs to be coupled with a better understanding of equitable and respectful research processes with members of Indigenous communities. This article describes the results of qualitative interviews with members of Indigenous communities and researchers who have participated in collaborative technical research to learn from their successes, challenges, and perspectives. In the context of the diversity of Indigenous communities and their varied cultures, values, and needs, we did not aim to produce a checklist of practices for others to follow. Rather, we sought to provide considerations to stimulate thought and preparation, and examples of what it can look like and feel like to engage in collaborative technical research with Indigenous communities. We hope the findings of this work will (a) help better prepare researchers from technical fields to make initial outreach to specific Indigenous communities in informed and respectful ways; (b) provide key considerations for working in respectful ways with Indigenous Peoples; and (c) identify areas for institutional action to better support natural sciences and engineering research that is Indigenous-driven.
Methods
Study motivation and partnerships
This research emerged from discussions between the University of Toronto Reconciliation Through Engineering Initiative (RTEI), the IISAAK OLAM Foundation (IOF), and the National Research Council (NRC) Ocean Program. In their respective areas, all had encountered natural scientists and engineers striving to work respectfully and collaboratively with Indigenous Peoples. While they saw potential for technical skills to be of use to Indigenous-driven aims, there was also the risk for harm if these efforts were not supported by informed and ethical practices. Thus, this project, along with the collaboration between RTEI, IOF, and the NRC Ocean Program, was born. The approach to our partnership was guided by the work of Mi'kmaw Elder Marshall on Two-Eyed Seeing (Bartlett et al. 2012; Bartlett 2015). Two-Eyed Seeing encourages collaborators to learn about and respect the strengths of Indigenous Knowledges alongside Western ones, and to apply both to increase understanding and benefit for all (Bartlett et al. 2012). We also learned from broader relevant literature, such as that on ethical space (Willie 2007), relational accountability (Wilson 2008; Latulippe 2015), and research ethics (CIHR et al. 2022). In support of these frameworks, we embedded a collaborative approach into the governance of the project. A Memorandum of Understanding was developed by RTEI and IOF, and an Advisory Group was established to provide ongoing guidance.
Positionality
Our varied social positions and lived experiences have necessarily shaped our approach to the project and interpretation of the results. We come from diverse cultural backgrounds, with HLG, MCR, and AMB of European-settler ancestry, RD as a second-generation immigrant from South Asia, and AC a visiting international student with East Asian heritage. BBC is a member of the Chippewas of Georgina Island and a community activist who has worked on various research collaborations in support of sustainable housing and natural building materials. EG is a journalist of Cree-Métis, Filipina, Scottish, and Irish descent who works as a Senior Communications Advisor and Community Storyteller with Coastal First Nations. KD is an engineering professor of European-settler ancestry who works with rural and Indigenous communities on water quality and technology, while EW is an engineer and PhD Candidate of settler ancestry who works on human-centred curriculum and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas with IOF.
Through the project's course we sought to learn from each other, with loosely structured meetings that allowed ample time for discussion. For the non-Indigenous researchers at RTEI who carried out the day-to-day activities of the project, we grappled in an ongoing way to understand what role we should play in this space and how to follow through on guidance from our partners. At the same time as collecting data on respectful research, we encountered challenges and considerations similar to those being shared with us. Partners with greater experience working with Indigenous communities provided guidance and connections to support outreach. They also pushed the Western-trained researchers to think in new ways about emerging findings and present these through the lenses of nature and the environment.
Participants
Using purposive sampling (Guest et al. 2017), two groups of participants were invited who would be able to share perspectives on Indigenous-driven research and lessons from past technical research collaborations. The first was members of Indigenous communities who had previously collaborated with technical researchers and were based in Canada. With awareness of the potential burden of external requests on Indigenous communities, we focused on individuals who worked in the public sphere as leaders or advocates. These participants were also chosen with consideration to accessibility through existing connections and some geographic dispersion. The second group was researchers in Canada who had engaged in work with Indigenous Peoples in the natural sciences, engineering, or another technical discipline, or who had collaborated with such technical researchers.
Initial recruitment was carried out through the networks of the project partners and supplemented by snowball recruitment to build off connections from initial contacts (Guest et al. 2017). In total, five community members from four different First Nations (Chippewas of Georgina Island, Metlakatla, Whitebear, and Wuikinuxv) participated in this project. Two of these Nations are located on the west coast of Canada, while the other two are in Saskatchewan and Ontario. The Indigenous community members shared their perspectives as individuals, not as official representatives of their Nations. Early designs proposed a greater number of community participants but were adapted to account for recruitment challenges and a priority on depth of connection rather than number of people. We recognize that the perspectives shared by these five Indigenous community members are not representative of the vast diversity that exists both between and within First Nation, Inuit, and Métis communities. It was not the intent of this project, nor would it be appropriate to attempt, to speak for this diversity of Indigenous Peoples. Rather, we sought to showcase some perspectives to stimulate critical reflection on Indigenous-driven research and encourage readers to remain open and adaptable to the particular cultures, values, contexts, and aims of different Indigenous communities. In addition to Indigenous community members, 35 researchers were interviewed, including lead researchers (n = 19), trainees such as graduate students and postdoctoral fellows (n = 11), and others (e.g., research managers or administrators, n = 5). Of these researchers, three self-identified as Métis and one as First Nation.
Qualitative interviews and analysis
Between March 2022 and September 2023, HLG, AC, and RD carried out semi-structured qualitative interviews (Kelly 2012). These were guided by open-ended questions (see Supplementary Material 1 and 2), which differed for community members and researchers, and allowed adaptation to the flow of conversation. The majority of participants (n = 35) were interviewed virtually for geographic flexibility and to be consistent with COVID-19 policies at the time of project design. As pandemic restrictions eased and to allow for greater personal connections where possible, five interviews were held in-person, including with four of the five participants from Indigenous communities. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, returned to participants for review, and imported into NVivo 12 for data management and analysis. Inductive thematic analysis was used to first code relevant segments of text, then review and group codes into broader themes, and finally review themes to consider higher level connections between groups (Braun and Clarke 2006). This was an iterative process in which codes and themes were constantly compared to ensure consistency and credibility in the analysis (Green and Thorogood 2009). To maximize rigour, three team members (HLG, AC, and RD) separately coded four transcripts and discussed together in-depth to develop a preliminary set of codes. This was applied and adapted as HLG and AC analysed future transcripts. This process was accompanied by frequent discussion between the research team, as well as the validation of emerging findings by email with research participants and in meetings with the Advisory Group.
Research ethics
This project was approved by the research ethics boards of the University of Toronto and the NRC. All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation. Given the history of uncredited research with Indigenous Peoples (Smith 2021), participants from Indigenous communities were asked for their preferences on anonymity during the informed consent process. All community participants chose for their identity and Nation to be openly credited in reporting. In addition, we returned raw data and summary reports to the participants to respect First Nations OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) Principles (FNIGC 2023).
Results
In this section, we present key themes from the interviews with members of Indigenous communities and researchers. Their stories showed diverse and sometimes very personal motivations for engaging in collaborative research, and that there was not one way of getting connected, learning from each other, and working together. Some spoke of research attempts that did not meet expectations, while others described journeys to deep and fruitful research relationships. From these detailed stories and reflections, the findings are summarized into (1) the need to prepare technical researchers to work ethically and respectfully in support of Indigenous-driven research; (2) key considerations for individual researchers and research teams; and (3) institutional-level factors. Selected quotes from participants accompany the theme descriptions. Except in cases where participants wished for their full names to be credited, pseudonyms have replaced real names.
The need to prepare technical researchers
Throughout the interviews, the experiences and perspectives shared reinforced the need to appropriately prepare researchers from technical fields to work ethically and respectfully in support of Indigenous-driven research. All of the community members interviewed spoke of expectations that research prioritize their needs, values, and timelines. Only if this was the case, then these community members identified potential interest in research partnerships and saw a possibility to leverage research to advance community goals. These community members shared diverse details about the context of their communities, needs, and rationales for engaging in research. The needs they discussed intersected with skills of technical researchers in areas such as addressing housing decay, protecting coastal areas from erosion, and monitoring wildlife. Research could also be a tool to combat struggles to have Indigenous voices valued by decision-makers:
“When the [eulachon] collapse first started, this is one of the things that I remember hearing my dad talk about all the time, is that they were trying to go to government and say, “You need to do something about this”…The government said, “You don't have any evidence. It's all anecdotal’.” (Jennifer Walkus, Wuikinuxv First Nation)
At the same time as these expectations and potential interest from members of Indigenous communities, however, 17 researchers spoke of a lack of training and/or support in the natural sciences and engineering to facilitate respectful work with Indigenous Peoples. Some felt unsupported or alone among their peers when they attempted such projects, while others worried of harm to communities from ill-prepared researchers in a climate in which working with Indigenous Peoples was very “fundable”. Training in natural sciences and engineering programs was generally felt to focus on technical competencies and lack content available in other disciplines on Indigenous history, interdisciplinary methods, and Indigenous cultural competency. This was spoken of with particular feeling among the trainees interviewed, with eight of the 11 trainees describing activities outside of coursework to prepare themselves which, for some, was not valued by their programs:
“I had all this core material to learn…really detailed methodological things to learn and a lot of technical skills…Then there was this whole other piece that was the cultural awareness, the understanding colonial histories, the understanding the Nations where I was going to. I was kind of expected to do that in my free time and I had no free time because I was a PhD student prepping for the field…I didn't feel supported in all that extracurricular work I was doing. I wanted that to be valued as much as was learning how to code in R.” (Maryam, Non-Indigenous Researcher)
Key considerations for individual researchers and teams
The prior section speaks to the need to better prepare technical researchers to carry out Indigenous-driven research. Building on this, five key considerations are presented for individual researchers and research teams who wish to carry out such work. These are summarized in Table 1 and are expanded upon below.
Table 1.
| Number of participants (n = 40) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key consideration | Description | Sub-themes | Community (n = 5) | Lead researcher (n = 20) | Trainee (n = 11) | Other researchers (n = 4) |
| Assessing Personal Preparation and Mindset for a Community-Centred Approach | The starting point of doing work with Indigenous communities, before reaching out to potential collaborators or designing a project. Includes taking steps to be informed about context and reflect on mindset. | • Understand that this is different from typical technical research • Do homework to learn about colonialism, Indigenous cultures, etc. • Consider mindset: humility, flexibility, service mentality • Self-reflect and decide to commit | 5 | 19 | 11 | 4 |
| Building and Maintaining Trust and Relationships | Relationships are central to collaborative work with Indigenous communities and often more important than the project itself. Building and maintaining trust takes time and commitment. | • Value process • Build off existing relationships • Make time to connect and listen • Be there in person • Respect place in community • Honour responsibilities | 5 | 18 | 10 | 4 |
| Community-Aligned Action and Benefit | Research should be shaped to community needs and focused on benefit to community in process and/or outcomes. | • It has to come from, or adapt to, community • Share decision-making power • Holistic understanding of issues needed • Respect community priorities and capacity • Benefit community | 5 | 20 | 11 | 4 |
| Practical and Financial Considerations | Detailed logistical and financial planning can set the stage to carry out research for Indigenous-driven aims. | • Seek approval from community structures • Plan for sufficient time and budget • Consider logistics of community meetings • Discuss data management • Build interdisciplinary teams | 4 | 20 | 11 | 3 |
| Communication and Knowledge Sharing | Effective communication can support relationships as well as efforts to effect policy change using research outputs. Care should be taken to verify and respect community wishes around knowledge sharing | • Ongoing communication supports relationships • Verify results with community • Design science communication to be concise, plain language, and linked to community priorities • Considerations when communicating Indigenous Knowledges | 4 | 14 | 9 | 3 |
Assessing personal preparation and mindset for a community-centred approach
Thirty-nine of the 40 participants, across all groups, spoke to the importance of a mindset that centres community needs and values, and is aware of the history and ongoing impacts of colonization. Assessment of preparation and mindset should come early and may be a different starting point from the more typical technical research process of first developing ideas and then seeking funding and partnerships based on those ideas:
“If someone came and talked to me and they had the kind of background I do, no history and no contacts, I would say, stop…Don't do anything, don't write anything, don't get invested in any way until you have spoken to people about what this means and how to do it with the best standards of ethics and engagement.” (Isabel, Non-Indigenous Researcher)
Researchers described efforts to educate themselves through online courses, articles, blogs, videos, and community websites. Reflecting on what they had learned, some researchers described how the goal of this education should not be to become an expert. Instead, preparing yourself helps to reduce the burden on the community (n = 10), open the mind to other viewpoints (n = 17), and adopt an approach that is humble, prepared to listen, and be of service (n = 24). Particularly for non-Indigenous researchers, preparation can include a commitment to reflecting on and working through any discomfort encountered from working across cultures or from community member reactions to settler-scientists within the ongoing legacy of colonialism. These discussions coalesced into the notion that technical researchers should spend time in honest reflection on their position, intentions, and personal capacity before deciding to reach out to an Indigenous community for research collaboration.
Building and maintaining trust and relationships
Building and maintaining trust and relationships was discussed in depth. A key element was “starting from a place of relationship-building” whereby people and process are valued, and the relationship is prioritized over the research agenda or timeline. Among the community members this was evident in different ways, with some (n = 3) emphasizing humbleness and personal connection and others (n = 2) speaking more of a structured community process towards research relationships. For all, whether stated explicitly or implicitly, positive or negative experiences with one research group were remembered and could affect the willingness to work with other researchers in the future.
Spending time in community and on the land and helping where appropriate were consistently identified by both community members and researchers as important to building relationships, showing commitment, and letting these expand naturally around shared interests:
“You can't build relationships through emails and Zoom with community members. It's just not how you do it. By showing up physically you show that you are serious, and you care about your relationship with them.” (Kai, Indigenous Researcher)
Researchers described how initial connections may be made easier by building off the existing relationships of supervisors or colleagues (n = 17) and/or working closely with a community liaison (n = 19). The element of time flowed through discussions of relationships, with significant time spoken of as required to begin new relationships and continued time investments as important to build and maintain trust. For researchers to understand their place in community was also an important part of successful relationships. This included respecting that community priorities come before research ones and that timelines sometimes need to be adapted to events such as a death in community or to seasonal changes in community schedules. Responsibilities to community should also be honoured, and examples were given of expanding from Master's to PhD studies to allow time for community goals to be addressed, and committing to relationships for the long-term:
“Relationships with Indigenous Peoples are forever. You don't begin working with a community with the expectation that you're going to leave that community after you're done your thesis or your project.” (Léo, Non-Indigenous Researcher)
In practice, this long-term commitment may mean working with one or a few communities for an entire career or simply keeping an open line of communication past completed research and an ongoing willingness to try to meet needs as they arise.
Community-aligned benefit and action
The next key consideration is the need to centre Indigenous-driven needs and benefits within the research process. Interviews with members of Indigenous communities made it clear that research was one tool in a range of approaches to influence decision-makers and provide tangible benefits to their peoples. All of the community member participants (n = 5) spoke of how research aims should come from or adapt to benefit the community itself. This was echoed by many of the researchers (n = 26) and sets the stage for a respectful approach. This can be supported by actions to share decision-making power through such mechanisms as memorandums of understanding, advisory groups, and partnerships. As Oliver, a non-Indigenous researcher, described: “If your boss says, “I don't want you to do it this way, I want you to do it that way,” you comply. The communities are my boss.” Part of creating Indigenous-driven research was also the importance of a holistic understanding of issues in context. That is, that technical researchers cannot merely focus on technical solutions without considering a particular community's history, values and political context, as well as the larger systems context and potential impacts of technical solutions on other aspects of the community and ecosystems.
The participants also provided examples of how the process of research and its outcomes could provide tangible benefits to a community. These included, for instance, developing briefing notes for use in consultation and advocacy activities, establishing monitoring programs for wildlife and ocean patterns, leading in-school or land-based science workshops, and preserving the voices of Elders in recordings. Flowing through this discussion was the recognition that the outputs often valued by natural sciences and engineering researchers (e.g., academic publications) may be different from those valued by the Indigenous community with whom they work.
Practical and financial considerations
The fourth key consideration is a group of practical issues to think about in the planning and implementation of research for Indigenous-driven aims. Three of the five community members interviewed spoke of the need for research approval from community structures. These three noted that their communities had structures to evaluate, approve, and monitor research by external actors. This may not be the case for other Indigenous communities, as significant diversity exists in the resources and capacity available for such purposes. Robert Nelson shared details of Metlakatla First Nation's robust structure to review and evaluate external applications. He also described how it sometimes takes outsiders time to understand that his Nation is in charge of what happens on their lands and waters:
“It took a long time for them to understand…they have to make sure all the engineers, whether it's placing the rock or looking after the title mark or looking after anything, they have to make sure that Metlakatla Stewardship Society is notified.” (Robert Nelson, Metlakatla First Nation)
Other practical considerations include allowing sufficient time for a community-engaged process. For both community members and researchers this was discussed as important to relationships. However researchers, and particularly trainees, also emphasized time constraints related to program requirements and funding timelines. Questions about appropriate budgeting to support research activities were asked of researchers. Identified budget items included some that might be unfamiliar to natural sciences and engineering researchers used to lab-based or industry-partnered projects. For example, generous travel budgets to support time in potentially remote communities, food and hosting costs for community meetings, honoraria and gifting, and community capacity-building (e.g., hiring local staff, staying in local accommodations, providing equipment). Planning for appropriate data management was also raised by both community members and researchers, with particular reference to OCAP Principles (FNIGC 2023). Discussion showed that there was not one set way to enact OCAP, and asking about and respecting wishes around how data are stored and used was considered to be most important. A final practical consideration was to build interdisciplinary teams to provide necessary insight and experience. Technical researchers described working with community members, a cultural advisor with whom that community is familiar and comfortable, advisory groups, and social scientist colleagues.
Communication and knowledge sharing
The final key consideration for individual researchers and teams was communication and knowledge sharing. On the one hand, communication is an integral piece of embedding the community in an ongoing way in the research process, and communication and knowledge sharing was discussed by four of the community members and 26 of the researchers. In addition, verifying and sharing data with the community was identified as a key activity later in the research process. Practical examples of what this meant included hosting a community gathering with food, activities, and a presentation of results. Other means of communication included newsletters, blog posts, and brief documents created with the assistance of graphic designers. Within this discussion was a sense of care with regards to community data, with links back to practical considerations around data management and respect for OCAP. At times, this means that the results of the research may be used only by the community instead of shared publicly. It is important for researchers to prepare themselves to follow a particular community's wishes regarding how results may or may not be shared instead of their own expectations for academic publication.
Effective communication to non-scientific audiences was noted by some participants as a general weakness among researchers in technical fields. This was presented as a barrier both to communicating with communities and to sharing results with decision-makers to further Indigenous-driven action-oriented goals. Science communication was pointed to as an area in which more training is needed, and one that researchers should value, budget, and plan for as part of their research activities. At a higher level still, four community members and eight researchers shared their overarching perspectives on knowledge sharing when working with Indigenous and Western scientific knowledges. This was discussed as an area in which work is still needed to ensure that the strengths of each knowledge system are equally valued. Some expressed caution around the current focus on “braiding” knowledges and pointed to the history of “cherry-picking” Indigenous Knowledges, “shoehorning” them to fit Western narratives, or “validating one against the other”.
Institutional-level factors
Earlier in this section we discussed results that spoke to the need to better prepare natural sciences and engineering researchers to carry out research for Indigenous-driven aims, followed by five key considerations for individual researchers and research teams who wish to carry out such work. In this final results section, we summarize four institutional-level factors that were identified by the participants. Depending on context and circumstances, each of these factors was spoken of as either supporting efforts towards Indigenous-driven technical research or making such efforts more difficult. This is described with respect to each of the factors below.
Mentorship
Researchers, and particularly students, who had access to strong mentorship (n = 15) identified this as crucial to learning about and facilitating respectful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples. This mentorship included that from within research institutions (e.g., Indigenous scholars, supervisors) as well as from within Indigenous communities (e.g., Elders, community partners). These mentors shared guidance, provided connections to Indigenous partners, and fostered environments that prioritized community work (e.g., routine discussion of treaty rights, support for adaptation to community needs).
On the other hand, researchers who lacked strong mentorship (n = 9) discussed this as a challenge. Some described how those they looked to for mentorship within their technical programs (e.g., supervisors) were also new to working with Indigenous communities and could not provide advice on what to read, did not have existing contacts to build from, and were unfamiliar with how to complete research ethics applications. One graduate student shared how her thesis committee had urged her to quit her studies because they felt she was not meeting her program timelines as she invested significant time and effort into relationship-building and knowledge-sharing with the Indigenous communities engaged in her research.
Institutional policies and processes
A second institutional-level factor is that of institutional policies and processes. Sometimes, these could help to create environments conducive to building and sustaining research relationships for Indigenous-driven aims. This was the case for researchers who spoke of strong ties between their academic institutions and local Indigenous communities, or who worked within clear mandates and leadership support for partnerships with Indigenous Peoples. Some researchers in government institutions spoke of how they had stable, long-term funding as well as flexible timelines. They described this as a better fit for sustaining relationships with Indigenous communities than typical one- to two-year academic timelines and funding.
However, institutional policies and processes could also present challenges. Short graduate program timelines (n = 16), particularly for Master's students, were identified as a poor fit for the time needed to build relationships and follow a flexible, Indigenous-led process. The research ethics and approval process was also discussed (n = 14), in relation to sometimes lengthy timelines for ethics approval, the importance of valuing community ethics over institutional ones, and the suggestion that ethical review should be more routine in the fields of natural sciences and engineering. In addition, financial policies around honoraria and compensation sometimes acted as obstacles to paying Indigenous collaborators in appropriate, timely, and barrier-free ways (n = 11).
Incentive and recognition structures
A third institutional-level factor was incentive and recognition structures (n = 20), which were spoken of as generally not structured to support respectful, Indigenous-driven research. Current structures were viewed as encouraging researchers to produce outputs that would advance their own careers rather than community-oriented processes and benefits:
“This whole idea of how we do science, the way the incentives are given to researchers, the system by which they're trained, the way that they progress through their careers, is not conducive to being accountable and having humility…If there's researchers out there that are just looking for their next funding and their next papers and stuff like that, we're going to have this problem all the time.” (Emma, Non-Indigenous Researcher)
Part of the issue was seen as a lack of recognition and understanding in technical fields of the time and effort that is required to carry out community-engaged work: “It's assumed that it's part of the project manager's work, but I don't think we're aware at [institution] how much time that can consume and how much time it requires to do it effectively” (Tomas, Non-Indigenous Researcher). This can lead to concerns, particularly for early researchers, about the impact on their future opportunities if carrying out research different from that typical of their fields that results in fewer academic publications.
Funding structures
The final institutional-level factor identified was funding structures (n = 30). Although researchers recognized that funding structures were changing to better support research for Indigenous-driven aims, these were still primarily presented as a challenge. Some participants (n = 9) felt that funding structures felt backwards because many do not support early conversations to identify community needs but do require detailed explanations of planned research. Others expressed that short-term funding made it difficult to support the long-term relationships that are foundational to work with Indigenous communities (n = 12), spoke of challenges with appropriately compensating for and funding the types of activities required for Indigenous-driven work (n = 11), and discussed the ability of research institutions to access and hold funding and the power this gives over research direction, process and timelines (n = 6). Even considering these challenges, researchers holding established relationships with communities showed a commitment to leveraging funding to serve the interests of those with whom they worked by, for example, writing grants knowing that project details would adapt to community interests, lengthening timelines when needed, and paying community members out-of-pocket to ensure timely and barrier-free compensation. One researcher noted that they had occasionally worked with financial administrators knowledgeable about community-engaged research and willing to advance funds to compensate community members. This suggests that building awareness about community-engaged research among financial administrators at research institutions could help to shift policies and practices to avoid the need for out-of-pocket payments by researchers.
Discussion
Overall, the results of this study align with the growing body of literature on the importance of ethical and respectful Indigenous-driven research. Researchers who wish to work with Indigenous communities should do so from a position that supports Indigenous-determined goals and respects the power of Indigenous Peoples to control what activities are carried out in their territories and with their data (Wong et al. 2020; Cannon et al. 2024). The power of Indigenous Peoples is particularly shown in the ways in which Indigenous organizations, leaders, and scholars are driving interest and action in key areas not only of relevance to their communities but to the broader population. This includes, for instance, the Assembly of First Nations calling attention to mold and decay in housing on First Nation reserves and Keepers of the Circle providing training pathways and partnerships for Indigenous women to help build sustainable and healthy housing (Assembly of First Nations 2022; Keepers of the Circle 2024). It also includes leading conservation efforts by such action as Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IOF 2022). Through this work, the strengths of Indigenous Knowledge Systems are evident. Indigenous Knowledge Systems upheld balanced relationships with nature for thousands of years prior to colonization and often encourage a relational approach that values responsibilities to each other, the environment, and to future generations (Wilson 2008; McGregor et al. 2023). Non-Indigenous researchers should be attentive to the fact that an Indigenous research agenda may not always include a role for them (Williams et al. 2020). On the other hand, there is also the potential for collaboration between Indigenous and Western scientific knowledges to create greater understanding if this is carried out within a process that equally values both (Bartlett et al. 2012; Latulippe 2015).
The results of this study reinforce the need to increase efforts within the natural sciences and engineering to support research for Indigenous-driven aims. Participants identified that more researchers are taking interest in working with Indigenous communities but that they have not necessarily been trained to do this work well. Based on the experiences and perspectives shared by members of Indigenous communities and researchers who have engaged in collaborative work, we presented key considerations to stimulate thought and preparation among others planning and carrying out such endeavours. While these considerations were discussed by both community members and researchers, we found the emphasis within them sometimes differed between these two groups. The interviews with Indigenous community members were each set within the significant detail and context they shared about their specific communities. Despite evident diversity in locations, needs, cultures, and resources between their communities, through all of their discussions was an emphasis on action and advocacy to advance community priorities. For the Indigenous community members, this emphasis on action flowed through all the other themes from preparation and expectations for researchers, to community-aligned benefits of projects, to effective knowledge sharing. While working for community benefit was also raised by all the researchers interviewed, all but four were non-Indigenous researchers and the majority of the discussions were less personal and political in terms of motivations for research. For researchers, cutting across all the other themes was a sense of struggle against the established processes of their institutional systems as they attempted to carry out research for Indigenous-driven aims. Researchers who were more experienced or trainees with strong mentorship seemed to have more positive experiences than those who were newer to the field and/or lacked such mentorship.
In all, the lessons learned from this project show a need to re-frame the starting point in the research process away from specific project design to assessing personal preparation and mindset to support Indigenous-driven technical research. They also point to factors of the institutional environment that can help to facilitate or hinder respectful research for Indigenous-driven aims. In Fig. 1, we share a conceptual drawing to represent the high-level implications of these results for researchers and their institutions. The forces at play driving the direction and focus of technical researchers may be viewed as the currents in a strong river flowing towards its main destination. These currents are the training programs, funding, and reward structures that incentivize natural sciences and engineering researchers to work within relatively short timelines and to produce academic outputs of benefit to their careers. A deeper consideration of the river and its roots leads one to understand where it flows from (e.g., colonial institutions), and the push of its main current (i.e., Western science-centred power).
Fig. 1.
At the same time, some researchers and partners work against the main current of the river towards an alternative route (an Indigenous community-oriented and community need-based process). This route requires a different starting point. Rather than jumping straight in, it takes deliberate action and significant effort and commitment, as its destination (community-oriented benefits) is not primarily supported by the main current in technical fields. It also requires guides who are familiar with this route and understand how to travel it (e.g., community partners, Indigenous advisors, mentors). Along the way, if they listen and remain open and flexible, researchers will come to see and understand strength, diversity, and connectedness (i.e., Indigenous worldviews, diversity, and action). However, it is also a rockier route with potential barriers along the way (e.g., bureaucratic processes). Without adequate preparation, even with the best intentions, researchers may be carried by the main currents to more typical academic outcomes or feel overwhelmed by the process. With the appropriate preparation, however, technical researchers may successfully contribute to Indigenous-driven aims and reconciliation.
Recommendations
Further to this conceptual understanding and grounded in the findings of this research, we recommend six actions for research and research funding institutions to help foster environments supportive of respectful research with Indigenous Peoples. While the majority of the results earlier in this article speak to actions that individual researchers and students can take to support Indigenous-driven research, the recommendations in this section focus on the need for structural change within the institutions these researchers work. Such institutions are not limited to academia but may include those in the public and non-profit sectors as well. The specific recommendations we provide are set within a broader need for the decolonization of research and research funding institutions to support Indigenous self-determination. Decolonization is a term that may be used in different ways by different authors (Cicek et al. 2023). In this article, we understand decolonizing efforts as seeking to make space for Indigenous and international cultures by working to remove bias and hierarchies that privilege Western approaches (Wolf et al. 2022; Hill et al. 2023). In light of this, decolonizing institutions and training programs may be considered as groundwork to create mindsets and spaces for undertaking collaborative approaches, such as Two-Eyed Seeing, that promote respectful work across both Indigenous and Western scientific worldviews. While some institutions have taken steps towards decolonization (University of Toronto 2017; University of Victoria 2017; Canada Research Coordinating Committee 2019), continued and concerted effort is required to ensure the implementation of strategic plans and progress towards stated goals. The recommendations that we provide from this research work in support of decolonization of research institutions, are listed in Table 2, and are discussed in more detail below.
Table 2.
| Recommendation 1: Mandate Indigenous cultural competency training for all staff at all levels in research and funding institutions |
| Recommendation 2: Work within and across research institutions to draw on expertise in other disciplines to increase training and mentorship for technical researchers in Indigenous studies and community-engaged research methods |
| Recommendation 3: Adapt work planning, incentive, and recognition systems within research institutions to value all stages of community-engaged research and community-oriented outputs |
| Recommendation 4: Revise funding structures to increase community-held funding and long-term funding to support ongoing relationships with Indigenous communities |
| Recommendation 5: Consider mechanisms to facilitate and sustain long-term connections between research institutions and Indigenous communities |
| Recommendation 6: Increase Indigenous representation in research institutions and invest in capacity-building in technical research for Indigenous Peoples and communities |
The first of these recommendations is for research and research funding institutions to mandate Indigenous cultural competency training for all staff at all levels. Cultural competency training should aim to counter tendencies to overlook or homogenize the diversity of Indigenous Peoples and to create understanding of the importance of informing oneself about the particular place-based governing systems, protocols, and values of potential Indigenous partners. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Call to Action number 62 focuses on the need to embed Indigenous contributions and Knowledges into how we teach Canada's youngest students. The need for education and training to support reconciliation is further emphasized with respect to the corporate sector in Call to Action 92 (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015). These Calls to Action recognize the broad educational gaps that exist in Canadian society on understanding Indigenous history and worldviews. While examples of cultural competency training do exist at research institutions (University of Toronto 2021; Memorial University of Newfoundland 2024), these are often optional programs rather than mandatory ones.
Further to the first recommendation, as a second, we also suggest training and mentorship for technical researchers in Indigenous studies, community-engaged methods, and approaches that understand technical solutions within larger contexts (e.g., systems approaches, empathetic design). This specifically seeks to address the training limitations in natural sciences and engineering fields identified by the participants as well as siloing between disciplines. To support efforts to add Indigenous context and increased self-reflection in technical training, it is possible to draw on an emerging body of resources on how to decolonize scientific institutions and the curriculum of fields such as engineering (Wolf et al. 2022; Cicek et al. 2023). For fields such as the natural sciences and engineering, this includes critical reflection on power relations within research institutions and on the power given to Western science to create evidence about our world (Hill et al. 2023).
Our third recommendation is to adapt incentive and recognition systems to value all stages of community-oriented research and outputs identified as valuable by communities themselves. These may include outputs not traditionally valued by research institutions to support community interests or respond to requests on the community (e.g., as part of government consultation and impact assessment processes). This involves a change in understanding of what is deemed to be a success by academic standards and how the performance of researchers is evaluated. For many researchers in the natural sciences and engineering, career progression may still be evaluated with academic publications as a primary indicator of success. This overlooks the significant time and effort community-engaged researchers put into such activities as relationship-building, establishing Memorandums of Understanding, and creating knowledge products of value to their Indigenous partners. One piece of changing the predominant paradigm of success is for researchers, within both academic and government institutions, to have dedicated and valued time in workplans for relationship-building and maintenance.
Fourthly, we recommend an increase in funding opportunities for technical research collaborations with Indigenous communities, particularly for funding held by Indigenous organizations and communities where the capacity exists to do so. Holding funding confers greater power over decision-making and the direction of research. Williams et al. (2020) argue for Indigenous research sovereignty, and that the current research governance approach enacted by Canada's main federal research funding agencies does not do enough to counter historic injustice towards Indigenous Peoples and support their research goals. At the same time, the resources and capacities of Indigenous communities vary greatly and, for some, holding research funding has the potential to create administrative burden. Investments in Indigenous community-based research administration capacity is needed from Canada's federal research funders (Williams et al. 2020). Strategic partnerships between communities may also allow resources to be pooled, while individual researchers may contribute to capacity-building by hiring local community members to help with project administration, providing training to community members as part of projects, and offering their skills to support Indigenous partners in setting up research administration processes. Participants in this current study also spoke of the need for more long-term funding opportunities to account for the significant time investment that is required to build relationships and honour commitments to Indigenous communities.
As a fifth recommendation, we point to the need for mechanisms within technical research institutions to support sustained, long-term connections with local Indigenous communities. Such mechanisms may help to guide technical researchers who are less familiar with relationship-building processes and sustain relationships beyond single individuals. It may also make it easier to introduce researchers with tighter timelines (e.g., graduate students) into pre-existing collaborations in respectful ways. Examples of potential mechanisms may include permanent staff and dedicated offices within research institutions to engage in ongoing and non-project focused ways with local Indigenous communities, and to manage and provide advice to researchers within organizations. Demonstrated commitment to partnerships with local Indigenous communities by senior administration may also lay the foundation for relationships with researchers and teams, including supporting Elders and Knowledge Keepers to have roles in governance structures, participating in local community events where appropriate, and inviting feedback and open communication regarding the activities and directions of research institutions.
The final recommendation works in support of all the prior recommendations. While the intent is not to place the burden of reconciliation efforts on Indigenous Peoples themselves, increasing representation of Indigenous Peoples within research and funding institutions may go hand in hand with broader structural efforts to decolonize these institutions, support Indigenous-led research, and integrate Indigenous ways of knowing and doing into education and research processes. Indigenous Peoples are currently underrepresented among those holding science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degrees more broadly as well as within the profession of engineering (Wong et al. 2020; Wolf and Martinussen 2022). Examples of strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of postsecondary faculty and students include meaningfully incorporating Indigenous cultural supports on university campuses (e.g., Elders in residence, Indigenous cultural centres), implementing equity-based hiring processes including for senior administrative positions, providing, and supporting Indigenous mentors for new hires and students, targeted outreach and financial support for Indigenous students, and flexible learning options to allow students to remain connected to their home communities (Pidgeon 2016; University of Victoria 2017; King and Brigham 2022).
Conclusion
The aim of this study was not to reduce the complex experiences of the participants to a checklist of how to carry out natural sciences and engineering research supportive of Indigenous-driven aims. The successes, challenges, and perspectives shared with us throughout this project highlighted how such collaborative community-engaged work must be flexible to the diversity of Indigenous Peoples and their varied needs and values. At the same time, this research sought to add to the growing body of work on respectful research with Indigenous Peoples by moving from theoretical guidance to sensitizing and practical considerations for natural sciences and engineering researchers who are planning and implementing such collaborations. It also highlighted that within the institutions of technical researchers, increased work is needed to create environments supportive of Indigenous-driven aims rather than reinforcing a colonial history of extractive and exploitative research with Indigenous Peoples. Although focused specifically on guidance for natural scientists, engineers and other technical researchers, the relevance of the findings of this project are not necessarily restricted to these fields. We encourage all researchers who engage with this work to use the findings to stimulate thought and to reflect on whether and how they apply in the context of a specific collaboration, with a specific community, in a specific place.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all of the participants in this research and to the advisory group for this project. Thank you to Natalie Clyke, Jennifer Walkus, Robert Nelson, Philip Clement, and Pamela Wolf for sharing knowledge and experience with us, to Terry Dorward, Eli Enns, and Kear Porttris for guidance, and to Sylvain Raymond, Lawrence Mak, and the NRC Indigenous Engagement Network for feedback and assistance in building connections. Wellington Kandare created a professional image from our conceptual drawing of Fig. 1.
References
Assembly of First Nations. 2022. National First Nations housing strategy [online]. Available from https://afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/National-First-Nations-Housing-Strategy.pdf [accessed 26 November 2023].
Bartlett C. 2015. Integrative science and two-eyed seeing: enriching the discussion framework for healthy communities. In Ecosystems, society, and health: pathways through diversity, convergence, and integration. Edited by M. Marshall, A. Marshall, M. Iwama. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, QC. pp. 280–326.
Bartlett C., Marshall M., Marshall A. 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(4): 331–340.
Braun V., Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101.
Canada Research Coordinating Committee. 2019. Setting new directions to support Indigenous research and research training in Canada. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 56p.
Cannon S.E., Moore J.W., Adams M.S., Degai T., Griggs E., Griggs J., et al. 2024. Taking care of knowledge, taking care of salmon: towards indigenous data sovereignty in an era of climate change and cumulative effects. FACETS, 9: 1–21.
Cicek J.S., Masta S., Goldfinch T., Kloot B. 2023. Decolonization in engineering education. In International Handbook of Engineering Education Research. Edited by A. Johri. Routledge, New York, NY. pp. 51–86.
CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC. 2022. Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans—TCPS 2. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 288p.
Codrington L., Haghi E., Yi K.M., McPherson M. 2022. Exploring grassroots renewable energy transitions: developing a community-scale energy model. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science, 13.
Cowen D. 2020. Following the infrastructures of empire: notes on cities, settler colonialism, and method. Urban Geography, 41(4): 469–486.
Dimayuga P., Sur S., Choi A., Greenwood H.L., Galloway T., Bilton A.M. 2023. A review of collaborative research practices with Indigenous Peoples in engineering, energy, and infrastructure development in Canada. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 13(3).
FNIGC. 2023. The First Nations Principles of OCAP® [online]. Available from https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/ [accessed 22 November 2023].
Green J., Thorogood N. 2009. Qualitative methods for health research. 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, London.304p.
Guest G., Namey E.E., Mitchell M.L. 2017. Sampling in qualitative research. Collecting qualitative data: a field manual for applied research. SAGE Publications, London. 355p.
Hayward A., Sjoblom E., Sinclair S., Cidro J. 2021. A new era of indigenous research: community-based indigenous research ethics protocols in Canada. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(4): 403–417.
Hill L., Ghorpade S., Galappaththi M. 2023. Toward decolonizing sustainability research: a systematic process to guide critical reflections. FACETS, 8: 1–11.
IOF. 2022. IISAAK Olam Foundation [online]. Available from https://iisaakolam.ca/ [accessed 26 November 2023].
Keepers of the Circle. 2024. Programs and services—skilled trades [online]. Available from https://keepersofthecircle.com/ [accessed 10 July 2024].
Kelly S.E. 2012. Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research. Edited by I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall, R. De Vries. SAGE Publications, London. pp. 307–326.
Kimmerer R. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teaching of plants. 1st ed. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, MN. 390p.
King A., Brigham S. 2022. “I was like an alien”: exploring how Indigenous students succeed in university studies. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 52(4): 41–55.
Kobluk H.M., Gladstone K., Reid M., Brown K., Krumhansi K.A., Salomon A.K. 2021. Indigenous knowledge of key ecological processes confers resilience to a small-scale kelp fishery. People and Nature, 3: 723–739.
Latulippe N. 2015. Bridging parallel rows: epistemic difference and relational accountability in cross-cultural research. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(2).
Lyeo J.S., Wong M.D., Clyke N., Big Canoe B., Kinnear P., Stopps H., et al. 2024. Ten questions concerning First Nations on-reserve housing in Canada. Building and Environment, 257: 111544.
McGregor D., Latulippe N., Whitlow R., Gansworth K.L., McGregor L. 2023. Towards meaningful research and engagement: indigenous knowledge systems and Great Lakes governance.Journal of Great Lakes Research, 49(1):S22–S31.
Memorial University of Newfoundland. 2024. For researchers: doing Indigenous research in a good way, Indigenous Research at Memorial [online]. Available from https://www.mun.ca/research/indigenous-research-at-memorial/for-researchers-doing-indigenous-research/ [accessed 3 July 2024].
NSERC. 2022. NSERC 2030: Discover. Innovation. Inclusion. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 25p.
Ocean Networks Canada. 2021. Advancing Indigenous partnerships in ocean science for sustainability [online]. Available from https://www.oceannetworks.ca/science/advancing-indigenous-partnerships-in-ocean-science-for-sustainability/ [accessed 23 May 2023].
Pidgeon M. 2016. More than a checklist: meaningful Indigenous inclusion in higher education. Social Inclusion, 4(1): 77–91.
Reid A., Eckert L.E., Lane J.-F., Young N., Hinch S.G., Darimont C.T., et al. 2021. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22: 243–261.
Smith LT 2021. Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous Peoples. 3rd ed. Zed, London. 302p.
Snook J., Cunsolo A., Borish D., Furgal C., Ford J.D., Shiwak I., et al. 2020. “We're made criminals just to eat off the land”: colonial wildlife management and repercussions on Inuit well-being. Sustainability, 12(19): 8177.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 535p.
University of Toronto. 2017. Answering the call. Wecheetowin. Final report of the steering committee for the University of Toronto response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 122p.
University of Toronto. 2021. Indigenous cultural competency toolkit, University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering [online]. Available from https://www.engineering.utoronto.ca/about/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/indigenous-cultural-competency-toolkit/ [accessed 20 December 2023].
University of Victoria. 2017. Indigenous plan 2017-2022. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. 36p.
Williams K., Umangay U., Brant S. 2020. Advancing indigenous research sovereignty: public administration trends and the opportunity for meaningful conversations in Canadian research governance. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 11(1): 1–22.
Willie E. 2007. The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1): 193–203.
Wilson S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, NS.
Wolf P., Gonzalez A., Rattray C., Saha D., Shaw J., Martinussen N., et al. 2022. Decolonizing the engineering curriculum. Pressbooks, Vancouver, BC. 188p.
Wolf P., Martinussen N. 2022. Report on truth and reconciliation in engineering education. Engineers Canada. 8pp.
Wong C., Ballegooyen K., Ignace L., Johnson M.J.(C), Swanson H. 2020. Towards reconciliation: 10 calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada. FACETS, 5(1): 769–783.
Yarchuk K., Northrup J., Menzies A., Perron N., Kemp C., Noganosh S., et al. 2024. Co-creating ethical space in wildlife conservation: a case study of moose (Mooz; Alces alces) research and monitoring in the Robinson Huron Treaty region (Ontario, Canada). FACETS, 9: 1–14.
Supplementary material
Supplementary Material 1 (PDF / 100 KB).
- Download
- 99.97 KB
Supplementary Material 2 (PDF / 89 KB).
- Download
- 88.79 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 10 • 2025
Pages: 1 - 13
Editors: Graeme Auld and David Lesbarrères
History
Received: 16 August 2024
Accepted: 14 November 2024
Version of record online: 13 March 2025
Copyright
© 2025 The Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during this study are not available to protect the confidentiality of the research participants.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Plain Language Summary
Learning from Past Experiences to Support Technical Research for Indigenous-Driven Aims
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: HLG, AC, RD, BBC, KD, EG, MR, EW, AMB
Data curation: HLG, AC, RD
Formal analysis: HLG, AC, RD
Funding acquisition: AMB
Investigation: HLG, AC, RD
Methodology: HLG, AC, RD, BBC, KD, EG, MR, EW, AMB
Project administration: HLG, RD, MR, AMB
Resources: AMB
Supervision: AMB
Validation: HLG, AC, RD, BBC, KD, EG, MR, EW, AMB
Writing – original draft: HLG
Writing – review & editing: HLG, AC, RD, BBC, KD, EG, MR, EW, AMB
Competing Interests
The authors declare that there are no competing interests.
Funding Information
National Research Council Canada: OCN-600-1
This research was supported by National Research Council Canada Ocean Program (grant No. OCN-600-1).
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Heather L. Greenwood, Alex Choi, Roxanna Dehghan, Becky Big Canoe, Kristian Dubrawski, Emilee Gilpin, Marie-Chantal Ross, Eric Wilson, and Amy M. Bilton. 2025. Learning from past collaborative experiences: setting a pathway for natural sciences and engineering researchers to support Indigenous-driven aims. FACETS.
10: 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2024-0165
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item