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)
Abstract
The strengths of Indigenous Knowledges and need for reconciliation are increasingly recognized within conservation, leading to a rise in collaborative, cross-cultural research initiatives. As both a cultural keystone and important harvest species, moose are of value to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, presenting an opportunity to pursue moose monitoring strategies that embrace the strengths of Indigenous and Western knowledges. While various frameworks provide theoretical direction on how to do so, few resources outline how to apply them in practice. Leaning on guidance of the Ethical Space framework, we explored the meaning and application of value-based approaches in the context of moose monitoring in central Ontario through semi-structured interviews with First Nation communities, the Ontario provincial crown government, and academic researchers. Collectively, 20 core values were identified to be important when bringing Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners together, coupled with a range of tangible actions necessary for fostering Ethical Space. Values and actions reflected three main themes: an emphasis on the long term, the importance of building and maintaining relationships, and the ability to evolve and adapt over time. Insights from this research provide tools and guidance for others interested in enacting Ethical Space in the context of cross-cultural wildlife monitoring and research.
Graphical Abstract
Positionality
Our collaborative research team is comprised of Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental professionals connected through our unique relationships to moose and shared desire to ensure they are healthy for generations to come. Three authors identify as Indigenous women—AM is of Red River Métis and settler descent from Treaty 2 territory; SN is Anishinaabe from Magnetawan First Nation (MFN); and JP is Anishinaabe from Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory. Each of these authors feel a responsibility to hold space for Indigenous Peoples, Knowledges, and values in academic research and wildlife conservation, where it is still often lacking. The remaining authors, KY, JN, NP, and CK, are of mixed European descent, with one (NP) filling the role of Conservation Biologist for MFN’s Department of Lands, Resources and Environment. Each of these authors feel a responsibility to support Indigenous caretakers and share the burden of Indigenous scholars in creating space for Indigenous Peoples, Knowledges, and values in conservation. With our individual identities and professional affiliations, we each hold different relationships to the colonial histories of wildlife (moose) management, and different responsibilities to each other and in the work we do to ensure we move forward in a more ethical and respectful way. Those of us who represent colonial institutions—despite our personal identities—recognize the history and context we bring with us when we enter partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and the need to intentionally disrupt ongoing colonial practices. Within the context of our differing identities, professional affiliations, and relationships to moose, we saw this work (i.e., understanding and practicing Ethical Space) as an important first step in embarking on cross-cultural, collaborative moose research; thus, this manuscript is as much a set of guidelines for others as it is for our own team. We thank interview participants for teaching us and expanding our understanding of Ethical Space, which has and will continue to help us uphold more ethical relationships in our future collaborations and conservation endeavours.
Introduction
Collaborative efforts and the weaving of knowledge systems have become increasingly widespread to address conservation concerns in Canada (Popp et al. 2019; Chapman and Schott 2020; Thompson et al. 2020; Proulx et al. 2021). Studies show that Indigenous-led conservation initiatives and effective cross-cultural collaborations achieve better conservation results and lead to more meaningful outcomes than solely Western science-led efforts (Artelle et al. 2019; No'kmaq et al. 2021; Reid et al. 2021; Lamb et al. 2022). Yet the benefits of Indigenous-led initiatives surpass empirical-based outcomes by supporting self-governance, cultural practices, and reclaiming traditional roles of stewards of the Land (Kyle Whyte 2018; Popp et al. 2020a; Reed et al. 2021). Despite this trajectory, the use of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, together, continues to disproportionately favour colonial systems, if approached without careful consideration (Reid et al. 2021). With a long history of Indigenous Knowledges being extracted from Indigenous Peoples and forced to fit within Western scientific frameworks, cross-cultural collaborations must move forward in ways that equally values Indigenous and Western knowledge systems without compromising the validity of either (Reid et al. 2021).
Fundamentally, values reflect principles or standards that are important to a certain person or group of people, and inevitably determine priorities and how those priorities are approached, whether intentionally or not. In Canada, dominant approaches to environmental conservation remain rooted in Western science and top–down implementation strategies (Hessami et al. 2021; McMurdo Hamilton et al. 2021). However, when working in a cross-cultural and collaborative context, identifying, understanding, and inviting all partners to determine what values are important centers the priorities and interests of all of those involved, leading to more equal and meaningful inclusion of all partners (Reid et al. 2014; McMurdo Hamilton et al. 2021; Menzies et al. In review).
Various Indigenous research frameworks (e.g., Etuaptmumk, or Two-Eyed Seeing, Kaswentha, or the Two-Row Wampum, and Ethical Space) provide theoretical guidance on value-based approaches that aim to meaningfully bring Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners and their knowledge systems together to address shared concerns (Ermine 2007; Bartlett et al. 2012; Hill and Coleman 2019; No'kmaq et al. 2021). Ethical Space is described as a thought space where Indigenous and Western knowledge systems respectfully co-exist alongside one another, in a way that recognizes the inherent value of each and provides a space for dynamic engagement (Alexander et al. 2021; Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). Cree Ethicist and Assistant Professor Willie Ermine (2007) contextualized the concept of Ethical Space within Indigenous legal issues in the early 2000s. However, Ethical Space has more recently been applied to conservation by the Indigenous Circle of Experts in the context of achieving a Pathway to Canada Target 1 as part of the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada (Indigenous Circle of Experts 2018). While Littlechild and Sutherland (2021) provide guidance for enacting and operationalizing Ethical Space, specific examples that describe how Ethical Space was achieved and what it looked/felt like in practice, particularly within wildlife research and monitoring, remain limited.
Engaging in meaningful cross-cultural collaborations is critical for addressing concerns shared across cultures, such as moose population declines (Mooz; Alces alces). As a cultural keystone species, moose provide sustenance, art, ceremony, and tools while fostering social relationships and cultural traditions for Indigenous nations (Leblanc et al. 2011; Priadka and Popp 2020). Additionally, moose provide socio-economic value to non-Indigenous nations through licensed hunting by non-Indigenous residents and tourists (Boyce et al. 2012; Timmermann and Rodgers 2017). Moose populations have declined by approximately 20% throughout the province of Ontario over the last two decades, driven by multi-faceted and interrelated factors (Marrotte et al. 2022). Changes in moose population health have been observed during provincially regulated annual moose monitoring, through academic research studies as well as first-hand by Land users/community members in First Nations (Marrotte et al. 2022; Priadka et al. 2022). With these three groups embodying unique experiences and knowledges, and operating at different scales, working together can provide a more holistic understanding of the challenges facing moose populations.
Leaning on theoretical guidance from the Ethical Space framework, the overarching aim of this study was to understand what a respectful knowledge-sharing space (theoretically and practically) may look like when bringing Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners together to discuss moose research and monitoring. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) identify the core values that are foundational to creating an Ethical Space, and (2) provide practical guidance on how to foster these values in practice. To include perspectives from a range of people and organizations that have an interest in moose, we interviewed individuals representing First Nation communities, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF; the provincial wildlife management agency), and research scientists, some of whom identify as licensed and/or rights-based moose hunters. Through our discussions and subsequent thematic analyses, we hoped to foster greater collective understanding of what it means to achieve Ethical Space and provide guidance for achieving Ethical Space in the context of wildlife monitoring and research, or for engaging in cross-cultural collaborations in other contexts.
Methods
Approach
This research took place by a collaborative team comprised of researchers from the University of Guelph, the MNRF, and MFN. This collaboration was made possible through previously existing research relationships among some of our partners. This partnership was grounded in a shared interest in fostering more equitable and welcoming spaces for diverse groups of people with unique knowledge systems who desired to create respectful opportunities to come together in the spirit of moose conservation and reconciliation. This collaboration was driven by the prioritization of the Five R's of Indigenous Research (Respect, Relevance, Relationships, Reciprocity, and Responsibility) throughout all stages and embodied consistent reflection of the research process with all partners (Kirkness and Barnhardt 1991; Lafferty et al. 2022). All research-related activities were co-developed and implemented first and foremost under the guidance of MFN and with approval by MFN community leadership (i.e., Lands Department and Band Office Staff). Doing so involved formal and informal discussions with leadership and community members throughout the duration of the project, where we sought guidance on the research process and ensured we were still welcome to proceed. We also checked in with participants many times throughout the process to ensure they were still comfortable with participating in our research, with our presence in community, and with their knowledge/perspectives being included in the outputs. Research activities were also in adherence to the University of Guelph’s Research Ethics Board approved application (No. 20-10-014).
Study area and participants
Because Ethical Space is defined by context—topically, culturally, or geographically—we wanted to ensure the conversations that took place through this work occurred across a study area that was relevant to all partners/authors and to moose. The region of interest centered on the traditional territory of MFN (TTMFN) within the Robinson Huron Treaty Area and expanded to include surrounding areas to (1) acknowledge that moose do not abide by territorial borders, (2) increase opportunities for regional relationship building based on a common interest (moose), and (3) align more closely with how the provincial government manages moose (regionally). After deciding on the region of interest, we recruited First Nations representatives, provincial government staff, and academic researchers that had a relationship to moose within that region.
To recruit First Nations participants, we followed the guidance of MFN's Department of Lands, Resources, and Environment (MFN Lands Department) and reached out to communities within Waabnoong Bemjiwang Association of First Nations (WBAFN). Waabnoong Bemjiwang Association of First Nations is made of up six First Nations in the region (Dokis, Henvey Inlet, MFN, Nipissing, Wahnapitae, and Wasauksing First Nations) and was a natural starting point to recruit First Nation participants, regionally. A representative from the MFN Lands Department emailed the Lands Departments in each of the six WBAFN First Nations inviting one Elder or Knowledge Holder and one Lands Department employee to participate in a semi-structured interview about Ethical Space and moose. Three communities, Nipissing, Wahnapitae, and Wasauksing First Nations, expressed interest in participating, in addition to MFN. Communities that did not respond were sent one follow-up email, ultimately, with no response. Participants from each of the interested First Nations were selected by their Lands Department staff based on their assessment of who would be best suited. In total, eight First Nations participants were interviewed.
Prospective provincial government participants were selected based on (1) geographic overlap of the communities within WBAFN, (2) roles and responsibilities related to moose monitoring or management, (3) Indigenous Liaison positions with geographic overlap, and (4) roles and responsibilities related to harvest quota setting and policy advisement at the regional or provincial scale. In total, 10 provincial government employees were invited and five were interviewed, with four of those being responsible for quota setting and policy advisement, one responsible for moose monitoring, and one Indigenous Liaison.
Research scientists included those employed by a university and/or the MNRF. Research scientists from the MNRF were differentiated from provincial government participants by their specific focus on active research rather than annual monitoring, management, and harvest quota responsibilities regulated by the MNRF. As research scientists are generally not as geographically bounded as the location of First Nation communities or provincial government management boundaries, prospective participants were identified based on their involvement in moose-related research within Ontario over the last 20 years in the published literature. Eleven prospective participants were identified and invited to participate via email, with eight participants ultimately being interviewed.
It is important to note the intersectionality of participants with some identifying as Indigenous, while fulfilling the roles and responsibilities of a provincial government employee or research scientist, as well as some employees of First Nation Lands Departments that identified as non-Indigenous/settlers. Participants were encouraged to reflect upon all facets of their experiences and identity in responding to interview questions.
Email invitations were similar across groups, outlining the participation process and attaching a project summary; however, the email itself was tailored to each specific group to be more personal, increasingly the likelihood of a response, in addition to noting specific components of the interview process that were different across groups (i.e., in-person versus virtual and compensation provided). A standardized example of the email and project summary are available in supplementary material. Upon confirmation of participation, an interview date and time were confirmed, and participants were provided with a consent form and sample interview questions, included in supplementary material. Participants were advised that the interview would be semi-structured; therefore, sample questions reflected a starting point and discussions would expand from there.
Semi-structured Interviews
To begin the interview, each participant was asked to describe their relationship with moose to ground the conversation in a shared area of interest and help participants feel comfortable. The remainder of the interview questions were organized to, first, reflect on existing frameworks for bringing diverse knowledge systems and people together in a theoretical context (Etuaptmumk, or Two-Eyed Seeing, Kaswentha, or the Two-Row Wampum, and Ethical Space), and second, to reflect on lived experiences, where participants were encouraged to reflect on the good, the bad, and the non-existent elements and discuss tangible actions and/or recommendations for moving forward. To accomplish this, our discussions were divided into three main sections: (1) important core values when bringing together Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners in the context of moose research and monitoring, (2) the exploration of past experiences and if/how core values were considered, and (3) tangible recommendations for including core values in future interactions related to moose. Interview questions can be viewed in supplementary material. Within the context of this research, the interpretation of a “core value” was left to the discretion of the participant and what they felt reflected the highest importance in how people should come together and engage.
Interviews took place from May–August 2022 and were all conducted by the lead author (KY), with the exception of one Elder interview which was conducted by NP, an employee of MFN Lands Department. This change was made in an effort to make the participant more comfortable, as they had a strong personal relationship to NP. Interviews with First Nation participants took place, in-person, in each community. In an effort to reduce barriers to participation and foster a safe and comfortable environment, participants were given the option to conduct interviews at the community Lands Department office, outside, or at their home. Furthermore, Lands Department staff, or other personnel who were known to the participants, were invited to sit in on the interviews to minimize the effect of researcher–participant power dynamics. As interviews lasted approximately 1 h each, the remainder of the day was set aside for spending time in the community-building relationships. First Nation participants were provided with a $100 honorarium and offered tobacco at the outset of interviews to express gratitude for their contribution in accordance with cultural protocols. Interviews with provincial government and research scientist participants took place virtually using Zoom (Version: 5.12.9). All participants provided informed consent prior to the interview and identified their preference for anonymity. In-person semi-structured interviews were recorded using two handheld recorders (Zoom H1n Portable Recorder) in case one recorder died or malfunctioned, and audio files were stored on an SD card. Virtual interviews were recorded directly on Zoom. All files were immediately saved on to the hard drive of a personal computer using unique, anonymized labels.
Transcription and coding
Audio files were transcribed using Otter.ai software (https://otter.ai). Upon completion, transcriptions were exported as Microsoft Word documents and uploaded into NVivo (Release 1.6.2) for coding (https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/). All transcription and coding were conducted by the lead author for consistency across participants and methodologies, with preliminary findings discussed with the broader team at various checkpoints (namely, after the identification of core values, associated actions, and main themes).
Transcripts were coded using a grounded theory approach with a mix of inductive and deductive coding (Boyatzis 1998). Inductive coding (i.e., codes emerge from the data; (Thomas 2006) was used to compile core values identified by participants during section one of the interview. Participants identified core values using both keywords (e.g., “listening,” “trust,” or “respect”) as well as stories that described but did not name/label specific values. Keywords were coded as is, and stories were coded into values that represented the overall message and/or messages of each, sometimes coded into multiple values. To acknowledge that core values may be interpreted differently among individuals and across worldviews, participants were explicitly asked to describe what the identified core values meant to them.
Core values identified were then used as a predefined set of codes for deductive coding (i.e., codes are determined prior to coding; Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006) to identify tangible actions within sections 2 and 3 of interviews that the participant felt related to that core value in practice. Some specific tangible actions were associated with multiple values, as many values were found to be related; therefore, actions were included in relation to each value and discussed in the specific context of that value. In some cases, interview participants shared how a value may be fostered in practice, despite not having identified it as a core value. In this instance, tangible actions were still included in an effort to develop a greater understanding of what the values look like in practice.
Axial coding (i.e., drawing connections between individual codes to create overarching themes or categories; Williams and Moser 2019) was used to draw out overarching recommendations by combining related elements of the core values identified by participants, their meaning from participants’ perspective, and tangible actions that reflected core values in practice. In total, we came up with three broad recommendations for supporting collaborative efforts among Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners to discuss moose in central Ontario. Despite many participants choosing to remain anonymous, representative quotes throughout the paper were selected intentionally to reflect perspectives from all three groups. Quotes were edited minimally for brevity and clarity.
Upon the conclusion of coding, results were shared with participants through a summary report and invited to provide feedback and discuss results in a virtual one-on-one follow-up meeting or community visit by the lead author. Three participants scheduled a follow-up meeting and two provided support for results via email response. In place of a virtual meeting, three participants from First Nation communities engaged in casual in-person discussions about the results.
Results
Participants’ relationships to moose
To open discussions with interview participants, we asked about their relationships to moose as both a means for participants to get more comfortable with the interview and as a means to contextualize participants’ responses within their own experience. Responses revealed unique relationships, perspectives, and understandings of moose. Participants reflected on memories watching moose as children instilling curiosity and patience; stories that brought friends and family together fostering a sense of community; fall harvests that provided food and an opportunity to share; and professional responsibilities that provide an opportunity to continuously shape these relationships. Regardless of their differences, these experiences led to a shared goal among participants—to better understand and effectively conserve moose populations. The diversity of experiences with and perspectives on moose reflected in participant responses strengthens the collective ability to understand changes occurring to moose populations.
Defining and fostering core values
Among all interview participants, a total of 20 core values were identified to be important when bringing Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners together to discuss moose (Fig. 1). Core values identified were not expected to encompass all values that were important to participants but were assumed to reflect foundational elements that participants looked for and expressed as important in meaningful partnerships. While some participants provided a list of isolated values, others thoroughly described a few values, and some described values through storytelling. Of all values identified by participants, respect was identified by the most collective participants (n = 15), followed by listening (n = 10), then clear expectations and equality (n = 9). Half of the total core values were identified by less than five participants. To emphasize and further understand core values that were important to the majority of collective participants, those that were identified by five or more participants were synthesized and tied to tangible actions below. Values discussed in detail below include respect, listening, clear expectations, equality, reciprocity, openness, trust, collaboration, relationships, and knowledge sharing. To reduce redundancy, these values, their underlying context, and associated tangible actions were discussed together for each value.
Fig. 1.
Of the 20 core values identified during interviews, many aligned with Indigenous teachings and research frameworks (see: (Tessaro et al. 2018; Indigenous Innovation Initiative 2021; Munroe and Hernandez Ibinarriaga 2022), while other values were unique and may not typically be considered a “value” through a Western lens (e.g., “clear expectations,” “shared interests,” or “moose”). As participants interpreted “core value” how they saw fit, the underlying context was crucial in understanding the depth of each value. The collection of core values identified, coupled with the description of values from participants’ perspectives implied fluid boundaries of the value’s definition. Participants commonly relied on other values to describe their understanding of a particular value (e.g., respect was described using patience and humility among others). While descriptions of values followed consistent themes among participants, how they were discussed within the context of moose research and monitoring varied. Some commonalities and differences are noted below, and we recognize the value in understanding this result as it has served as an important discussion topic within our research group. However, due to the often divisive nature that exists within colonialized frameworks and our conditioned response to recognize differences, for the purpose of this paper, we intentionally opted to focus on values that were shared among the diverse group of participants rather than comparing and contrasting. We encourage readers to approach results by first noting the similarities and secondly recognize that each participant group and individual brings their own unique experiences, perspectives, and understandings to the conversation.
Respect
Respect was identified the most and was, commonly, the first core value identified. Participants often required reflection to articulate what respect meant to them and commonly relied on other values (patience, humility, empathy, and understanding) to do so. Respect was often used as an adjective (e.g., maintaining a respectful dialogue or being respectful of others’ time and constraints) indicating the importance of acting in a way that values other people and their time, knowledge, and contributions. Two participants specifically noted respecting the Earth, moose, and all other animals, and working together to ensure their persistence for future generations. Two participants described respect as accepting different views and approaching those differences in a way that does not diminish the other.
“I guess it's context specific. When thinking about getting folks together who may have different cultural backgrounds, or knowledge systems, or ways of knowing, or being, I think respect can mean many things, and I think it can differ with individuals or communities or Nations… but when I think of respect, I think of respecting all ways of knowing, being, knowledge systems, not considering one way of knowing or being as superior to another. Respect means… being patient, listening to one another. Respect means… allocating time, you know, a sufficient amount of time. Like, invest time into relationships, spending time on relationship building, that's respect, right? Respect for one another. Respecting cultural protocols. So, for example, if Indigenous Peoples were part of the meeting, or gathering, typical protocols might be to open with an Elder prayer or a few words and to close, maybe to have a smudge. So being respectful, even if things you don't understand, potentially, and listening and learning” – Anonymous Participant
One participant broadly summarized what was a common thread throughout the participant responses: respect in practice entails a greater emphasis on actions that demonstrate respect compared to vocal expressions, and that the collective accumulation of actions over time leads to respectful relationships among partners. Numerous participants also shared ways that altering meeting procedures can foster respect (Table 1). While a seemingly small action, adjusting how participants are positioned during discussions can have significant impacts, as noted by one participant, by minimizing associations with other colonial institutions or experiences.
Table 1.
| Value | Example tangible actions |
|---|---|
| Respect | • Allocate time during early stages of collaboration for casual opportunities to build relationships and continue meaningful engagement • Engage early to ensure all perspectives are considered during planning and maintain constant communication throughout • Actively create opportunities for all attendees to share in ways they are most comfortable (e.g., storytelling) • Use of a talking stick to hold space for the speaker (relates to culture-specific protocols, discuss among partners to determine appropriateness) • Physically and mentality present during gatherings and engaging in active listening rather than passive • Situate people in circles when gathering to avoid hierarchical-like settings • Have a tangible item present to represent and show respect for moose (e.g., hide, drum, or antlers) |
| Listening | • Avoid interrupting others • Acknowledge others when they contribute knowledge, comments, or concerns rather than dismissing or ignoring • Listen for the purpose of understanding and learning, rather than responding |
| Clear Expectations | • Identify a general objective • Co-create a set of guidelines to ensure that everyone agrees and understands how the partnership process will take place • Hire a facilitator or moderator to uphold agreed upon guidelines |
| Equality | • Select gathering locations that reflect and celebrate the diverse peoples, cultures, and knowledges present and infuse opportunities that support cultural practices, if desired • Physical spaces—horizontal leadership, attendees at the same physical level (contrasted with a stage or podium) and in circles • Equal opportunities for attendees to share and in various ways (e.g., microphone, small groups, and written) • Recognize the weight of who speaks first and fill this role with careful consideration • Balanced representation (e.g., gender, age, and race) |
| Reciprocity | • Dedicate time at onset to determine how the partnership will benefit everyone involved • Summary reports in a format that benefits all. Isolating concerns, discussions, findings, etc., may help grant proposal writing, determining future steps, advocating for priorities, or influencing policy decisions • Invest in the partnership by spending time on and learn from the land, embracing opportunities to learn/engage with cultural traditions, share conservation techniques, and give back outside of project boundaries and requirements |
| Openness | • Embrace and include cultural practices (e.g., opening prayer, smudging, and tobacco offering) to open minds, foster good intentions, and speak on behalf of past, present, and future generations • Position participants in a circle to foster safety and security • Reflect on the partnership as a dynamic journey that may change directions based on priorities • Careful consideration to the creation and use of agendas and whose priorities they reflect. A co-created “purpose” or “outline” was preferred and recommended to allow for more flexibility • At an individual level, being available, interested, and receptive of learning about other’s perspectives through active listening |
| Trust | • Trust does not develop with one single action, but with an accumulation of actions and time • Consistency in who is present at gatherings and in communication among partners • Transparency of intentions • Follow through on responsibilities and promises |
| Collaboration | • Facilitate partnerships that are built upon an ongoing process and continuous dialogue • Co-create research and monitoring priorities and approaches to addressing them • Proceed at a pace that all participants feel comfortable, with recognition that building trust and relationships take time • Guided by shared values; therefore, specific actions relate to those of all other values |
| Relationships | • Dedicate time and resources to invest in relationship building prior to sharing knowledge or making decisions • Small consistent actions over time—same people, continuous dialogue, and reciprocity • Build relationships at a personal level outside of formal discussions (e.g., by sharing a meal, coffee, or time on the Land) • Gather throughout the partnership for the purpose of building relationships, without seeking project-related benefits |
| Knowledge Sharing | • Intentionally create physical spaces for knowledge sharing that foster equality and openness among participants and knowledge systems (see above). Importance of spaces that are familiar, comforting, and welcoming (e.g., out on the Land) was emphasized when sharing knowledge • Actively create welcoming and meaningful opportunities for all to share (relating to respect, listening, and openness; see above) • Consider appropriate group size, preference for smaller sizes when sharing knowledge • Time of year for gatherings should be discussed among partners to align with the interests of all partners (consideration to cultural practices, capacity, and accessibility) • Produce consistent updates/summaries following discussions that are accessible and available to all participants |
Note: Core values listed only include those identified by more than five participants.
“Were you seated as if you were sitting at a residential school listening to your nun speak? Or were you sitting in a circle where you're comfortable together? The only reason I say something like that is because I think those are the things that, when it comes to relationship building and understanding who you are working with, knowing that traumas and triggers are there, and that generations of our people suffered, and knowing to be mindful of those things, and seating yourself differently, so to not cause trauma and triggers” – Samantha Noganosh
A common suggestion was to ensure all meeting participants have an opportunity to contribute, if desired, without disruption. Moving beyond passive opportunities for contribution by actively creating a platform for others to share knowledge and be reinforced that their perspective is valued was described by one participant. A talking stick was recommended as a respectful way to hold space for the speaker to share and was also discussed in the context of values such as listening, equality, openness, and knowledge sharing. Lastly, awareness and recognition of those in highly respected positions, such as Chiefs, Counsellors, and Ministers, and being knowledgeable of these roles and engaging with them in appropriate manner was identified as an important and respectful action by one participant.
Listening
Listening, learning, and understanding other’s perspectives were identified as important values by eight participants. Collectively, these responses conveyed the importance of having an open mind, absorbing knowledge that is being shared, and reflecting on this knowledge with the intention of understanding.
“Listening, listening, listening, listening, you don't need to have something to say for everyone's comments… you don't need to tear someone's ideas down, every time they speak. They probably think those things for a reason. Find out why they think that way, and why they're saying the things that they are communicating.” – Anonymous Participant
Patience was frequently referred to when discussing listening in practice, most notably while others are speaking to avoid interruptions. Patience was noted to be particularly important when conversations may appear to be off topic or unrelated. Listening was also described as recognizing when a response is not required; simply listening attentively, acknowledging, and expressing validation of what was shared was described to be enough.
“Listening doesn't mean you can't speak. It just means that while someone else is speaking to you, you“re letting them finish and maybe giving them that couple of seconds and not feeling like you need to come back with a response or … an example or … something comparable. You just listen and validate what they said … It's just the acknowledgement ‘I heard you. I”m absorbing it, and I want to take what you're telling me’ and you move it forward.” – Anonymous Participant
Clear Expectations
Clear Expectations was a core value that emerged from various responses related to ensuring all participants have a shared understanding about what could be expected from a partnership. Responses related to the collective objective(s) of the partnership, transparency of individual’s intentions when gathering, and how partners interact with one another, always emphasizing communication and transparency among all partners.
“Knowledge co-production is supposed to be goal oriented. And, if they are shared goals, then the opportunity for those diversity of perspectives to come around and disagree in a safe environment becomes possible.” – Anonymous Participant
Five participants shared that the collaborative process should be discussed and agreed upon by everyone involved during early stages of coming together (also an action associated with respect). Discussions should include how attendees will interact with one another, how knowledge is shared with the group, responsibilities at the individual and group scale, and how to achieve outcomes that reflect priorities of all participants (Table 1). Having outcomes articulated and agreed upon by all participants were also shared in relation to reciprocity, as it ensures all participants are benefiting in meaningful ways. Participants referred to outcomes from these discussions as creating “House Rules”, “Terms of Reference”, and/or “Ground Rules” and recommended hiring a facilitator or moderator to uphold agreed-upon guidelines while relating to other values of respect, equality, and openness. Three participants specifically noted that this role should be, ideally, someone who is Indigenous.
“I think [the goal] deserves careful attention and consideration, and is not something that should be rushed into… Is it relationship building? Or is it relationship building with the added benefit that we are talking about moose? Or is it purely moose? So, for me something like this [defining the goals] would … change the narrative. It'll change the way people think, I think” – Anonymous Participant
Equality
All responses relating to equality reflected the need for inclusion of all partners, and knowledge systems, at all stages. Both literally and metaphorically, no one or no one's knowledge is to be above or below others, but side by side. Specific reference was made to how gatherings are organized, how attendees interact with one other, how knowledges interact, and the physical space interactions occur in. Two participants noted how this can influence whether or not participants feel welcome and valued in the conversation.
Discussions related to equality as a core value emphasized that inequalities and power imbalances have existed in the past, currently exist, and will likely continue to exist in the future. One participant noted that power imbalances and inequalities cannot be ignored but, instead, must be acknowledged and actively counteracted to ensure all participants and their knowledges are considered as equals.
“I really think it's critical to reflect on the power dynamics or the perceived power dynamics. Who has power in the relationship? And purportedly from where does that power come?… So when we think about, coming together for a conversation around moose, I think it's a really important question for particularly the participants who think they have power or purportedly have power, to reflect on that power and then do the inverse. If you have power, you don't really need to tell people you have that power, you need to go out of your way to make clear that that power isn't going to be weaponized in your conversation, that if we are genuinely working towards a common goal and a shared equitable space” – Anonymous Participant
Tangible considerations shared by participants reflected actions that can work to re-balance power, creating a more shared equitable space (Table 1). Most notably, there was an emphasis on the physical space (immediate room and general location) in which discussions took place by and how this may subconsciously portray equality (or inequality).
“I think the physical space is more important than I think we give it credit for. Simple things like putting tables in circles and having more horizontal leadership… it's not someone standing at a podium, speaking down at everyone. It's everyone on the same level, physically. Everyone in the same kind of plane, physically” – Anonymous Participant
While “neutral” locations are often selected for gatherings (e.g., hotels) to not favour one group, it was noted that forcing neutrality on the situation strips away everyone's uniqueness rather than uplifting their differences. Generally, participants suggested locations that reflect and uplift diverse cultures and knowledges, with many noting the importance of gathering in First Nations. Three participants explicitly suggested spending time on the Land together as it is expected to be a comfortable space for many and noted re-occurring gatherings do not need to occur in the same location and group members can take turn hosting.
“We have to understand that it may not be all the time that we have to demand these things [hosting in community]. But bringing it to a parity where it's evenly weighted. Because it's not reasonable to expect them [non-community members] to always come to the community and do the meetings. But by incorporating some of these values that we're talking about, kind of brings us to that more ethical space than what it is right now, without getting too demanding on them too, though. Because we don't want to start doing what they are doing to us, right? By demanding them always to come here.” – Anonymous Participant
Reciprocity
Intentional consideration to the give-and-take among partners was emphasized to ensure that all participants are benefiting from the collaboration or partnership. One participant described a partnership as a community where everyone is contributing in unique ways, and, in return, everyone benefits. Many emphasized that individuals should be benefiting in ways that are relevant and meaningful to their priorities and interests, which may require compromise and conflict. But ultimately, the goal is for everyone to benefit, including moose.
“And that could take compromise and … arguments and frustration, but just to find a space where everyone can benefit at least a little bit and including, hopefully, moose” – Anonymous Participant
Reciprocity can look many unique ways among and within partnerships, reflecting a dynamic process that is not always equal. Dedicating time at the onset to discuss priorities can help identify how the partners can both meaningfully invest in and benefit from the partnership (Table 1).
“I think something very specific that can help foster reciprocity is having very clear and written out, asks, expectations, and outcomes. Not that that is the only way that reciprocity can be fostered, but just to ensure that everyone signing on to the scenario understands what they are getting out of it. And I think those things need to be written down and acknowledged by everyone” – Anonymous Participant
Openness
All seven participants who identified openness as a core value shared the same underlying themes: approaching partnerships and discussions with an openness towards others, other perspectives, and not entering a partnership with preconceived notions.
“Openness to other worldviews, other opinions, other knowledge, things not working out, things having to take a turn, because of different priorities or concerns of other people. And, just being open to not knowing all the answers or everything at the start and kind of going on a journey with everyone else there” – Anonymous Participant
Tangible actions related to openness were similar to those of respect, listening, and equality; most notably relating to the inclusion of cultural practices, how participants are situated, and how participants receive information shared by others (Table 1). Participants isolated the creation and use of agendas as being negative, noting that an agenda reflects rigidity, prioritizes certain priorities, and outlines preconceived ideas about what will be discussed Participants acknowledged the importance of a “purpose” and “outline” for a gathering, but suggested that it should be created together, be reflective of all interests, and be flexible. For knowledge sharing sessions, one participant suggested using an icebreaker activity at the beginning to collectively determine what the discussion will be about.
“…having a schedule of some sort, but not making the schedule very rigid. Having some fluidity to it… So you just have the general things that are going to be discussed, and… just having those open, round table, circle discussions” – Norm Dokis
Trust
Reflecting on a history of mistrust among Indigenous Peoples and colonial institutions, trust was noted to be crucial for partnerships to move forward in addressing shared concerns and/or building meaningful relationships. As an action-based value, participants noted trust requires time, consistency, and needs to be earned.
“We get together and we talk about these things. We develop trust, but it often has to be done at a personal level… It takes time and needs to be acknowledged that it takes time. It takes a long time to get some level of trust to the point where you can actually work together.” – Anonymous Participant
Following the themes of time, consistency, and transparency, no single action was identified to build trust among partners alone, but rather the accumulation of actions over time. Actions relating to respect, listening, equality, and reciprocity emphasized the interrelatedness of values (Table 1). Specific suggestions regarding consistency were made in relation to who is present noting the importance seeing familiar faces to support relationship building and maintaining communication among partners. These were important to hold accountability among partners.
“I think one of the worst things that non-Indigenous researchers, academic academics, government biologists can do is to continue to say they“re going to do something and then not do it. In my mind, it's almost better to just not even say you”re going to do something. Because that's what the historic relationship has been between Indigenous Peoples and crown governments and colonial institutions it is just a constant letdown and a constant building of mistrust, like saying you're going to do one thing and then doing another and, and not much transparency” – Anonymous Participant
Collaboration
Noting the preference for “collaboration” over “consultation”, participants described the importance of working together and doing so at all stages. Collaboration was shared to relate to values of openness and listening, while exploring opportunities for change. In contrast, consultation was noted to be rigid and structured, reflecting one step of a larger process, rather than a process on its own. Lastly, one participant reflected on collaboration as a community approach, one that reflects the interests of all and supports the inclusion of all.
“Like the Two Row Wampum: walking the same road, right? The same path, but two different people. I think that's important to carry on into meetings as well, understanding that and we“re not here to wrestle over one or the other. And to come out a winner or a loser, it's to work together, because we have that same road where we”re walking down, right” – Anonymous Participant
Strong and effective processes were emphasized to allow partnerships to operate in a meaningful way, long term. These processes were shared to be (1) intentionally developed to support a continuous dialogue among partners, (2) create opportunities for all to contribute and benefit, and (3) lead to the development of relationships. How the collaborative process takes place was shared to be guided by values; therefore, specific actions related to those of respect, listening, clear expectations, equality, reciprocity, openness, trust, and relationships (Table 1).
“It should be an ongoing process and a continuing dialogue, I think, more than a one-off workshop or a session, you know, even so, I think, yeah, that's how I would view it is a regular occurrence, you know, that we're going to keep doing this, you know, at some, like regular intervals over such a time. And I think that would even, if sometimes there wasn't a lot of information to share, it keeps people engaged in the process. And I think it also provides opportunity for people to get to know each other better, and to I think there's value in that.” – Anonymous Participant
Lastly, one participant recommending having a visual or tangible item present at gatherings to represent the collaborative partnership (e.g., wampum belt or item made from/representing moose) to remind participants of why everyone has come together and how they are to engage with one another to best support the group.
“…perhaps these wampums at meetings are very important as well, because they kind of like are a living entity, when you bring them out… and can contribute to what the intent of everything that we“re doing here… between the two parties, the First Nation and a proponent or the government, is that we”re here to work together for a common benefit for both parties.” – Anonymous Participant
Relationships
Responses and descriptions of relationships placed an emphasis on understanding who you are working with and what is important to them—getting to know partners as people. Four participants noted that relationships are safer when you are familiar with others in the group and are aware of their intentions. Relationships were noted to be an avenue for fostering other core values and to lay the groundwork for long-term partnerships. Lastly, participants noted relationships require work whether it is among organizations or individuals and emphasized the importance of setting aside time and energy to develop them.
“I do like to think about shared community and how we build communities, and how we take things away from communities but need to be cognizant of putting the labor in to build the community or, otherwise we don't have it. So, when we have shared interests or shared resources, I think a lot about the concept of community, and what it is, and how it takes work. I guess within that, for me, the idea that relationships are also labor, whatever they might be, whether they're between organizations or between individuals” – Anonymous Participant
Tangible actions relating to respect, reciprocity, and trust were also discussed in the context of building relationships, with themes of consistency and spending time together outside of formal meetings (e.g., coffee breaks, sharing meals, and spending time together on the Land) (Table 1). Consistent and continuous gatherings were noted to be important, even when there are seemingly no updates, as an opportunity to stay engaged and continue developing relationships. Gathering to simply share stories about moose without seeking project-related benefits was recommended as a way to build relationships and learn from one another.
“So, I think more time… should have went into relationship building, as opposed to seeking benefits. For example, instead of you know, just having, you know, meetings where you're talking business, business, business, how about hanging out in the community and get to know each other? And yeah, so I think, yeah, definitely. trust building and relationship building, I think should be more prioritized.” – Anonymous Participant
Knowledge sharing
The importance of knowledge sharing revealed common threads of gathering for the purpose of reciprocal sharing among one another to better understand each other and mutual interests. Beyond just the exchange of information, meaningful knowledge sharing opportunities create physical spaces that are safe and welcoming for all, and embody transparency, accessibility, and inclusivity of diverse perspectives.
“The more that we can work together and share the knowledge, I think the better off it is, given that often there can be two different viewpoints or two different ways of seeing it… Sharing that knowledge and understanding at the end of the day, creates more knowledge” – Anonymous Participant
A number of considerations were made by participants to facilitate two-way sharing (Table 1). Suggested actions closely relate to those of respect, listening, equality, openness, listening, and relationships with an emphasis on the physical space. Having participants positioned in circles was recommended in relation to many values. One participant included a disclosure, noting it is not just about the positioning of participants, but intentional considerations given to the comfort levels of those present and how to ensure they feel valued and have their knowledge heard. Being mindful of priorities at certain times of year was expressed. For example, winter was shared to be a time of storytelling for some First Nations and spring a time for renewal in some Anishinaabe teachings, perhaps making for an appropriate time to share knowledge, while summer and fall are often busy and spent on the Land harvesting. Discussions about the goal of a gathering and the suitable timing should be had among all partners.
“I think Lands-based would be super ideal for any sort of [knowledge sharing] discussion, because the Land is medicine too, right? And, how can folks get stressed out if they walk out the door, and they are, you know, under a canopy of trees, or sitting by a lake. Because the Land is medicine, and that's what you need. I think in these scenarios, where there's been poor relationships in the past, having an environment around you that can be so healing, and I think that would be ideal” – Anonymous Participant
Relating to past, formal exchanges of knowledge, one-way lecture or presentation style gatherings were referenced to be commonplace. While this style of presentation was noted to be beneficial in some instances, two-way group discussions allow for various perspectives to be shared and more of a dialogue. Discussing with partners which presentation style is preferred and when was recommended.
Application
Collectively, 21 participants with diverse roles and relationships to moose identified a total of 20 values that are foundational to Ethical Space within the context of moose research and monitoring in central Ontario. Of those, the 10 most common values that were shared by more than five participants include respect, listening, clear expectations, equality, reciprocity, openness, trust, collaboration, relationships, and knowledge sharing. Participants also shared actions that can help embody these values, related to how, where, and when people come together. From the core values and tangible actions identified, three main themes emerged that serve as important, and broadly applicable, considerations when fostering Ethical Space among Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners. These themes represent a synthesis of the results and relate to pre-existing, theoretical guidance on Ethical Space in the literature. Themes included (1) an emphasis on the process through which partners come together, (2) the importance of partnerships being founded on personal relationships, and (3) the ability for the process and relationships to evolve over time. Throughout, we share additional quotes from participants to ground/contextualize our findings in the voices of the participants.
Consider the process to support long-term partnerships
Considering how Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners come together to discuss shared concerns, it is imperative to not only reflect on, but also understand how the history of these engagements (or lack thereof) influences present-day interactions. These engagements, past and present, have been extractive of Indigenous Knowledges, organized for the intention of “checking a box,” have taken place over irregular timelines, or have simply been non-existent (Littlechild 2020; McGregor 2021). If partners are genuinely interested in weaving knowledge systems to better understand ecological phenomena (or moose, in this case) and meaningfully engaging with Indigenous partners, dialogical processes must be developed that support these goals in the long term (Hill and Coleman 2019; Alexander et al. 2021). Within the context of wildlife monitoring and research, these processes require allocating time to invest in the partnerships, developing research or monitoring priorities and approaches together, recognizing the inherent value of diverse knowledge forms, sharing decision-making responsibilities, and ensuring that all participants benefit from the partnership.
“It's when we think about the methodology of capturing traditional knowledge, you have to build trust, you have to go back over and over again, you can't just go in once and be parasitic about your approach.” – Norm Dokis
Developing processes that maintain a collaborative approach and prioritize the interests of all partners during all stages is key to supporting long-term partnerships (Nikolakis and Hotte 2022). The emphasis on the continual process rather than crossing a finish line is reflected by the Two-Row Wampum and Ethical Space (Ermine 2007; Hill and Coleman 2019; Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). This is particularly important in facilitating a continuous dialogue of communication that can maintain relationships during moments of conflict and further reflect on conflict as a transformative process that strengthens partnerships and prompts change to better reflect the interests of those involved (Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). When bringing diverse people, worldviews, and knowledges together to address a topic of great interest and influence to all, it would be naïve to expect a smooth process. Working to develop processes at the onset that are capable of embracing conflict rather than avoiding is crucial for true partnerships that persist over a long term.
Importance of building meaningful relationships
The importance of developing strong relationships is a consistent recommendation in examples of effective partnerships among Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners (Popp et al. 2019). Although relationships did arise as core value during interviews, it was not identified as commonly as expected. Further, the number of participants who identified relationships as a core value did not reflect the weight that it carried during interviews. If not identified as a core value, relationships were commonly discussed as an important strength from positive experiences, a missing element of past negative experiences, or emphasized as a leading recommendation going forward.
“I think those [values] cover it, in a long, long-term perspective as well, like this is founded on relationship. So, I think you can't do this kind of thing without forging a relationship, and then the relationship has to be very genuine” – Anonymous Participant
Participants identified the importance of finding common ground among one another (e.g., moose), while stifling any conflicting differences to aid in relationship building. Although common ground is important and there is an emphasis on coming together to address shared interests, the process of truly building relationships and developing a deep understanding of one another requires differences to be uplifted as well. Hill and Coleman (2019) explain that the Two-Row Wampum “…alerts us to the importance of each party noting the distinctness of our own epistemological and educational traditions in dialogue with other ways of knowing and learning.” Hill and Coleman 2019 elaborated to describe Ethical Space as the white beads between the two purple rows as an avenue, rather than a barrier, for which the distinctiveness of each group is embraced and protected from assimilation. Investing time and energy into developing genuine, personal relationships among partners may be driven by similarities at first but may create opportunities to learn about differences and better understand the priorities and motivations of those involved.
Whether noting the need for relationships to exist at the personal level or identifying humility as a core value, many participants emphasized the importance of coming into conversations as people first. Willie Ermine (2007) described Ethical Space as “a venue to step out of our allegiances, to detach from the cages of our mental worlds and assume a position where human-to-human dialogue can occur. The ethical space offers itself as the theatre for cross-cultural conversation in pursuit of ethically engaging diversity and disperses claims to the human order.” All participants had an opportunity to reflect on their relationship to moose. By sharing stories, many participants put their professional affiliation aside and offered a piece of their character—insight to their motivation behind caring for moose. These stories reflect human experiences that are shared among many and make people relatable and approachable. It is at this scale that human-to-human dialogue and personal relationships can evolve. Further, three participants (one from each group) identified moose as a core value and others referenced the Earth, moose, and all other animals in the context of Respect. Aligning with Indigenous pedagogies, these sentiments emphasize the importance of dialogical processes and respectful relationships that surpass those among just humans by holding agency for more-than-human relatives. Chartrand (2007) used the phrase All My Relations to refer to the foundation of interconnection within First Nations worldviews; recognizing relationships among people of present, past, and future generations, and the Land they live on alongside other creatures. Furthermore, All My Relations recognizes the inherent value of all beings and the need to respect and care for them just as our human relations (Chartrand 2007). Participants suggesting having a tangible item created from a moose (e.g., drum, hide, or antlers) present during gatherings to represent the moose's spirit while also serving as a reminder of the interconnectedness of our relationships with the Land (e.g., Elder Joe Cooper Jack refers to this as the “No Voice Perspective” within the Land and Peoples Relationship model https://www.respectcareshare.ca/#Model)
Ability to evolve through reflection and striving to do better
While the number of successful partnerships among Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners collaboratively addressing shared environmental concerns is growing across the Land also known as Canada, they continue to evolve, and much remains to be learned (Polfus et al. 2016; Popp et al. 2020b; Reid et al. 2021). As we continue to see new examples, it is increasingly clear that every partnership is unique and what works for one group cannot be mirrored for another. Unsurprisingly, the process of engaging in Ethical Space is, likewise, unique to the specific context (Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). Determining how partnerships can best operate to support the inclusion of all partners will require time and constant reflection to assess what is working well and what can be done better. At various stages of the interviews, participants highlighted the importance of a reflexive and continuously evolving process.
Adaptive, sort of. I don't think anyone will get it right, the very first shot…So to have that ability to grow and learn from one another, and to know that's a priority, so that everyone in the room says anything you see that can be improved, like of something you liked or didn't like,” – Anonymous Participant
Additionally, collaborations can be expected to look different as relationships continue to develop over time. As with any relationship, a greater investment is required at the onset to establish a strong foundation and collaboratively determine priorities and expectations. As one example, the location of gatherings was a tangible action brought up in relation to multiple core values. While tied to specific core values, in general, conversations about the physical space were prompted by reflecting on past experiences that felt inaccessible and unwelcoming for many First Nation participants. These participants emphasized the importance of creating an environment that “feels like home”—a place that fosters a sense of security and comfort (similar to research methodology “Nokom's House”; Merasty and Skoczylas 2021). Following years of traveling to unfamiliar locations, all of these participants noted that gatherings should take place within community at the beginning to provide that sense of security. Participants continued to emphasize that gatherings do not always need to take place in community and recommended alternating locations once a relationship has built. Similarly, priorities of those involved may shift over time and the process of engaging should allow opportunities for these priorities to be re-evaluated and adjusted as needed.
Concluding remarks
While many of the tangible actions shared throughout this chapter may seem simple and intuitive, the true recommendation stemming from this work is to intentionally create space and time for these values to be prioritized from the outset of projects and partnerships, rather than as a band-aid to fix a fragmented foundation after issues arise. Ethical Space is co-created and is the responsibility of everyone involved; however, as demonstrated here, power dynamics have favoured Western scientists and crown governments for far too long. The spirit of this paper is to serve as a call to action for non-Indigenous individuals wishing to engage in collaborative, cross-cultural research, to reflect on the intentionality of their actions and prioritize context-specific values such as those outlined here. And, further, for colonial institutions and governing bodies to create systems that allow for these broader recommendations to be possible as a step towards reconciliation within environmental research. Alongside this call, we feel are tools and resources that can be utilized in contexts beyond moose, wildlife, or the environment. While we achieved these results centered around moose research and monitoring in the Robinson Huron Treaty area, and some elements may not be applicable in other contexts, we aimed to provide guidance and encouragement at various scales that are transferrable to many. Specifically, we encourage those interested in exploring Ethical Space within their own collaborations to engage in a similar activity, and to begin at whichever stage is best suited (for example: engaging in initial discussions about values and co-developing guiding principles, identifying how values are expressed by those involved, implementing broad-scale processes within agreements to support partnerships long term, or reflecting on how a partnership may evolve and have different needs than previously). We encourage the use of materials provided within this study as support and making modifications to ensure applicability to other contexts, but please note these recommendations are not intended to be used as a checklist or one size-fit all approach.
Acknowledgements
As a research team, we would like to express our gratitude to all participants for taking the time to share your knowledge and experiences with us. We are humbled how your passion for moose and humility towards other people guided these interview discussions and made this research possible. It is our intention and hope that this research will uplift the voices of all participants, emphasizing commonalities and making space for differences. We hope to reciprocate the inspiration we felt during each interview by sharing the collective responses to aid in providing practical considerations and guidance for future discussions related to moose (and beyond) in alignment with theoretical guidance of Ethical Space. Chii-miigwech, thank you.
This research was graciously supported by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Canada Research Chair, Canadian Foundation of Innovation, Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring Program, and Natural Sciences, Engineering, and Research Council Discovery Grant. Throughout this endeavour, KY was supported by Ontario Graduate Scholarship and Morwick Scholarship; CK was supported by Arthur D. Latornell Graduate Scholarship, MacSon Entrance Scholarship, RIC Engaged Scholarship, and Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology; and AM was supported by a Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellowship and University of Guelph Indigenous Postdoctoral Award.
References
Alexander SM., Provencher JF., Henri DA., Nanayakkara L., Taylor JJ., Berberi A., et al. 2021. Bridging Indigenous and Western sciences in freshwater research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 2(3):.
Artelle KA., Zurba M., Bhattacharyya J., Chan DE., Brown K., Housty J., Moola F. 2019. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biological Conservation, 240: 108284.
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.
Boyatzis R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publishing, Cleveland, OH.
Boyce M.S., Baxter P.W.J., Possingham H.P. 2012. Managing moose harvests by the seat of your pants. Theoretical Population Biology, 82(4): 340–347.
Chapman J.M., Schott S. 2020. Knowledge coevolution: generating new understanding through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and empowering local knowledge holders. Sustainability Science, 15: 931–943.
Chartrand P. 2007. Ni_Hk_M_Kanak (“All My Relations”): Metis-First Nations relations. Saskatchewan. Available from https://fngovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/paul_chartrand.pdf [accessed 14 February 2023].
Ermine W. 2007. The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1): 193–201.
Fereday J., Muir-Cochrane E. 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1): 80–92.
Hessami MA., Bowles E., Popp JN., Ford AT. 2021. Indigenizing the North American model of wildlife conservation. Facets, 6: 1285–1306.
Hill R.W., Coleman D. 2019. The two row Wampum-Covenant chain tradition as a guide for Indigenous-university research partnerships: cultural studies, Critical Methodologies, 19(5): 339–359. https://doi-org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/10.1177/1532708618809138.
Indigenous Circle of Experts. 2018. We rise together: achieving pathway to Canada Target 1 through the creation of Indigenous protected and conserved areas in the spirit and practice of reconciliation. Yellowknife, NWT. Available from https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/pc/R62-548-2018-eng.pdf [accessed 30 January 2023].
Indigenous Innovation Initiative. 2021. Shared values and principles that guide Indigenous Knowledges creation and application. Toronto. Available from https://indigenousinnovate.org/downloads/i3-shared-values-and-principles-that-guide-indigenous-knowledges-creation-and-application_may-2021-final.pdf [accessed 14 February 2023].
Kirkness V., Barnhardt R. 1991. First Nations and Higher Education: the four R's—respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3): 1–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24397980.
Lafferty A., Gonet J., Wasilik T., Thompson L., Ertman S., Bandara S. 2022. Navigating the shifting landscape of engagement in Northern research: perspectives from early career researchers. The Northern Review, 54, pp. 1–27.
Lamb CT., Willson R., Richter C., Owens‐Beek N., Napoleon J., Muir B., et al. 2022. Indigenous-led conservation: pathways to recovery for the nearly extirpated Klinse-Za mountain caribou. Ecological Applications, 32(5): 1–16.
Leblanc J.W., Mclaren B.E., Pereira C., Bell M. 2011. First Nations Moose Hunt in Ontario: a community's perspectives and reflections. Alces, 47(May): 163–174.
Littlechild D. 2020. One step forward, two steps back: an Indigenous perspective on recent efforts to fight climate change. Journal of International Affairs, 73(1): 261–266.
Littlechild D., Sutherland C. 2021. Enacting and operationalizing Ethical Space and Two-Eyed Seeing in Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas and Crown Protected and Conserved Areas. Available from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d3f1e8262d8ed00013cdff1/t/6166ee2f2dc5b13b0e44fb63/1634135600122/Enacting+and+Operationalizing+Ethical+Space+in+IPCAs+and+Crown+Protected+and+Conserved+Areas+-+June+4.pdf [accessed 27 February 2024].
Marrotte RR., Patterson BR., Northrup JM. 2022. Harvest and density-dependent predation drive long-term population decline in a northern ungulate. Ecological Applications, 32(6).
Marshall A., Beazley KF., Hum J., Joudry S., Papadopoulos A., Pictou S., et al. 2021. “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. FACETS, 6(1): 839–869.
Mcgregor D. 2021. Indigenous Knowledge systems in environmental governance in Canada. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 5(1).
Mcmurdo Hamilton T., Canessa S., Clark K., Gleeson P., Mackenzie F., Makan T., et al. 2021. Applying a values-based decision process to facilitate comanagement of threatened species in Aotearoa New Zealand. Conservation Biology, 35(4): 1162–1173.
Menzies A.K., Bowles E., McGregor D., Ford A.T., Popp J.N.[no date]. Values-led approaches to caring for the land: Indigenous perspectives, practices, and priorities. In Review at people and nature(Resubmitted October 2023; PAN-23-04-163)
Merasty R., Skoczylas M. 2021. 2021 RAIC International Indigenous Architecture and Design Symposium. The Canadian Architect, 66(8): 13–16. Available from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2587951550/fulltextPDF/29DAFB33DA2446A0PQ/1?accountid=11233 [accessed 14 February 2023].
Munroe H., Hernandez Ibinarriaga D. 2022. Indigenising design: the Seven Grandfathers’ Teachings as a design methodology. The Design Journal, 25(3): 437–458.
Nikolakis W., Hotte N. 2022. Implementing “ethical space”: an exploratory study of Indigenous-conservation partnerships. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(1): e580.
Polfus J., Manseau M., Simmons D., Neyelle M., Bayha W., Andrew F., et al. 2016. Łeghágots'enetę (learning together): the importance of Indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological variation. Ecology and Society, 21(2).
Popp J., Priadka P., Young M., Koch K., Morgan J. 2020. Indigenous guardianship and moose monitoring: weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 14(2): 17.
Popp JN., Priadka P., Kozmik C. 2019. The rise of moose co-management and integration of Indigenous knowledge. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(2): 159–167.
Priadka P., Popp J. 2020. Anishinaabe knowledge and perspectives on moose: a report submitted to Magnetawan First Nation.
Priadka P., Moses B., Kozmik C., Kell S., Popp JN. 2022. Impacts of harvested species declines on Indigenous Peoples’ food sovereignty, well-being and ways of life: a case study of Anishinaabe perspectives and moose. Ecology and Society, 27(1):30.
Proulx M., Ross L., Macdonald C., Fitzsimmons S., Smit M. 2021. Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and ocean observing: a review of successful partnerships. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 806.
Reed G., Brunet ND., Longboat S., Natcher DC. 2021. Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to Indigenous environmental governance. Conservation Biology, 35(1): 179–189.
Reid M.G., Hamilton C., Reid S.K., Trousdale W., Hill C., Turner N., Picard C.R., Lamontagne C., Damon Matthews H. 2014. Indigenous Climate Change Adaptation Planning Using a Values-Focused Approach: A Case Study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34: 3 401–424.
Reid AJ., Eckert LE., Lane J.‐.F., Young N., Hinch SG., Darimont CT., et al. 2021. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2): 243–261.
Tessaro D., Restoule J.-P., Gaviria P., Flessa J., Lindeman C., Scully-Stewart C. 2018. The five R's for indigenizing online learning: a case study of the First Nations schools’ Principals course. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 40(1): 125.
Thomas DR. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2): 237–246.
Thompson K-Ly, Lantz TC., Ban NC. 2020. A review of Indigenous Knowledge and participation in environmental monitoring. Ecology and Society, 25(2): 1–27.
Timmermann H., Rodgers A.R. 2017. The status and management of moose in North America—circa 2015. Alces, 53, pp. 1–22.
Whyte K. 2018. What do Indigenous Knowledges do for Indigenous people? In Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from Indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Edited by Melissa K., Daniel Shilling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 57–82.
Williams M., Moser T. 2019. The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1).
Supplementary material
Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 61.2 KB).
- Download
- 61.26 KB
Supplementary Material 2 (DOCX / 15.2 KB).
- Download
- 15.24 KB
Supplementary Material 3 (PDF / 141 KB).
- Download
- 141.25 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 9 • January 2024
Pages: 1 - 14
Editor: Mark Mallory
History
Received: 30 June 2023
Accepted: 15 March 2024
Version of record online: 3 July 2024
Copyright
© 2024 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
Out of respect for the nature of knowledge shared throughout this study, it is not publicly available. However, can be made available by request to the corresponding author, with consideration to OCAP principles.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: KY, JN, AM, NP, CK, SN, JP
Data curation: KY, NP, CK
Formal analysis: KY
Funding acquisition: KY, JN, JP
Investigation: KY, AM, CK
Methodology: KY, AM, CK
Project administration: JN, AM, NP, SN, JP
Resources: JN, NP, SN, JP
Supervision: JN, AM, NP, SN, JP
Validation: KY
Visualization: KY
Writing – original draft: KY
Writing – review & editing: JN, AM, NP, SN, JP
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Funding Information
Ontario Graduate Scholarship
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Kathryn Yarchuk, Joseph Northrup, Allyson Menzies, Nadine Perron, Claire Kemp, Samantha Noganosh, and Jesse Popp. 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. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2023-0112
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