Engaging Knowledge Diversity/Indigenous Knowledges

Indigenous Knowledges: A general term referring to the diverse knowledges and practices of Indigenous peoples, often used interchangeably with the terms “Indigenous ways of knowing,” “Traditional Knowledge,” “Indigenous Ecological Knowledge,” and “Traditional Cultural Expressions.” Indigenous Knowledge systems tend to centre holism and relationality, and knowledge is expressed in tangible and intangible ways (Littletree, Belarde-Lewis, Duarte 2020).

This term has been contested for several reasons. First, defining which knowledge qualifies as Indigenous is not straightforward (Green 2008, Roy 2016). Second, when the term is used in the singular form (“knowledge”), it can homogenise the knowledges of diverse Indigenous communities across the world (Green, 2008). Third, the organization and classification of Indigenous knowledges has a history of being done in service to the nation state to further colonialism rather than to benefit Indigenous communities (Littletree, Belarde-Lewis, Duarte 2020).

Despite the important caveats to the term, it has been defended because it can have strategic importance in certain contexts, such as the demarcation of lands or the defense of environmental knowledge (Green, 2008). Indigenous knowledges can also help question the colonial foundations of institutions such as universities, museums, and archives, as well as their refusal to acknowledge the Indigenous ways of knowing undergirding the creation of Indigenous collections (Littletree, Belarde-Lewis, Duarte 2020).

Indigenous methodologies: Methodologies “anchored in Indigenous epistemology, theory, ethics, story, and community” (Kovach 2009). Indigenous methodologies ask researchers to give back to the individual and collective good and prioritize building good relationships with the communities that will be a part of the research (Kovach 2009).

Agrawal questions the proposed dichotomy between western and Indigenous knowledge, and how this distinction relates to development studies. Agrawal argues that this dichotomy is illogical, unproductive, and contributes to a host of contradictions in how Indigenous knowledge advocates propose centering Indigenous knowledge. This dichotomy is problematic because there is a great deal of heterogeneity within these categories, and it renders dynamic and interactive knowledge systems into stationary and independent categories. This dichotomy also overgeneralizes substantive, methodological, and contextual differences. Through emphasizing the divide between western and Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous knowledge advocates’ strategies are contradictory: for instance, advocates’ promotion of storing and documenting Indigenous knowledge in archives and museums indicates that despite their valuing of this kind of knowledge, they still perceive systematization, order, and centralization as necessary for development. By moving beyond the western and Indigenous knowledge dichotomy, links between power and knowledge become clearer. Agrawal argues that it may be more productive to frame issues through political relationships and advance in situ (locally situated) rather than ex situ (externally situated) preservation of Indigenous knowledge.

Battiste discusses why Indigenous knowledge has been excluded from western knowledge systems, frameworks for understanding Indigenous knowledge systems, and policies aimed at protecting Indigenous knowledge. Battiste argues that western thought has employed a variety of strategies to characterize Indigenous knowledge as “backward” and render it invisible within Eurocentric knowledge systems. Indigenous scholars, finding Eurocentric knowledge systems contradictory to their experiences, turned to Indigenous knowledge to restore control over capacity building in their communities. The 1990s saw a growing interest in the relevancy of Indigenous knowledge amongst academics and policy sectors. Battiste goes on to discuss several critical policies intended to protect Indigenous knowledge. She argues that while Canada has affirmed most international obligations to protect Indigenous peoples’ rights, its educational institutions have ignored Indigenous pedagogy. In order to balance European and Indigenous knowledge systems within the educational context, Eurocentric thought’s interpretive monopoly must be recognized, and a deeper understanding of Indigenous knowledge must be gained. Battiste concludes by calling for an in-depth exploration of the assumptions inherent in Eurocentric knowledge and educational theory and for “Aboriginal” people to study and write about the foundations of modern society.

Cajete explores the nature, possibilities, and foundational characteristics of an ecology of Indigenous education. Cajete advocates a contemporary educational process based on tribal values and principles. The book is a response to three primary needs: (1) the need for a modern perspective of “American Indian” education informed by the orientations of “Indians” themselves, (2) the need to investigate approaches to education that address the requirements of Indian communities during the educational and ecological crisis and, (3) the need to weave together the breadth of materials on Indian culture and education to advance contemporary philosophy for American Indian education. American Indian education is explored through a journey of preparing, asking, seeking, making, understanding, sharing, and celebrating the wisdom of this approach to education. Chapters explore the spiritual, environmental, mythic, visionary, artistic, affective, and communal foundations of Indigenous education. A final chapter discusses ethnoscience and relates seven core courses for an Indigenous science curriculum to the seven cardinal directions honored by Indigenous peoples. Cajete argues that Indigenous education offers great opportunities for ecological thinking and transforming modern education in the United States.

Callison, Ludbrook, Owen, and Nayyer consider the relationship between Indigenous knowledge and cultural heritage institutions in Canada. They outline the key issues regarding the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and cultural artifacts in these institutions and recommend a set of best practices for engaging respectfully and appropriately. Callison et al. draw on Indigenous scholarship, Canadian copyright law, and examples of cultural heritage institutions’ stewardship to demonstrate the complexities and nuances involved. Overall, the authors advocate for an approach to stewarding Indigenous knowledge predicated on respect, affirmation, and recognition of Indigenous knowledge.

Christen explores the tensions between movements toward open access and Indigenous structures for information circulation. Christen argues that general calls for openness, a rhetoric of the commons, and memes such as “information wants to be free,” have resulted in limiting vocabulary around information circulation and access. More specifically, they have led to a false dichotomy between open systems that promote freedom and closed systems that invite oppression. Movements for open access and public domain have also failed to acknowledge relevant histories of exclusion and Indigenous orientations toward information sharing. Christen argues that Indigenous structures for information circulation and digital technology present the necessary framework for developing a new vocabulary that can capture the historical and ethical aspects of information circulation. Christen develops this argument through discussing the function of Mukurtu CMS; a free and open-source information management tool which was designed to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples from across the world by centring relationality. Key to the development of Mukurtu CMS was the ability for Indigenous communities to determine how information flowed based on relationships, so that only people with certain family and place-based relationships would be able to access certain types of information. Through special attention to communities’ social norms, Mukurtu CMS not only promotes new ways of circulating cultural materials but also a way of recognizing diverse knowledge management structures. Christen concludes by arguing that tools can embrace expansive views of openness and incorporate a wider range of cultural concerns around information circulation.

Farnel, Koufogiannakis, Laroque, Bigelow, Carr-Wiggin, Feisst, and Lar-Son discuss the work of the Decolonizing Description Working Group (DDWG) at the University of Alberta Libraries (UAL) which emerged within the context of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action. The DDWG was established to create more inclusive metadata practices. Farnel et al. argue that subject access and descriptive practices are social justice issues and that current standards, specifically Library of Congress Subject Headings and Library of Congress Classification, perpetuate colonial biases toward Indigenous communities. Embedding Indigenous worldviews within descriptive practices is a step towards decolonization and reconciliation. The senior administrative team at the UAL accepted five recommendations from the DDWG that the UAL (1) collaborate with groups across Canada to develop and implement revised subject headings that appropriately represent Indigenous peoples, (2) lead the way in working with Indigenous communities to revise subject headings reflective of Northern contexts, (3) engage a person to coordinate consultation and outreach in support of recommendation two, (4) retroactively implement revised subject headings to appropriate library resources as the first three recommendations reach completion, and (5) work with Internet Archive and HathiTrust to implement revised subject headings to UAL resources held in their repositories. Farnel et al. emphasize the importance of building on established relationships and consulting with local Indigenous communities when implementing the DDWG’s recommendations. This consultation takes time, but Farnel et al. state that they are committed to doing this work because it reflects their commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusiveness.

Green explores issues of prejudice, power, epistemology, and metaphysics to challenge the binary opposition of Indigenous knowledge and science. This opposition is artificial and problematic because it homogenizes the knowledges of diverse Indigenous groups under one single unified system, it implies race-based notions of social evolution from primitive to civilized, and it denies the possibility of different forms of knowledge influencing each other. Green also calls for critically examining the conditions of power under which different types of knowledge are produced to assess how research agendas are defined, why knowledge production is funded, and the epistemological foundations on which knowledge is claimed. The author concludes that rather than hoping for western scholarship to accommodate Indigenous knowledges, the enquiries of knowledge traditions excluded from scholarship should be evaluated according to their ability to advance understanding in their explanatory contexts.

In the editorial remarks on the “Indigenous Knowledges” issue of KULA, Hancock et al. discuss the motivation, process, guiding values, and challenges the editorial team faced while developing the special issue. The special issue consists of sixteen contributions in a wide array of formats that address the problematic practices of social memory keeping institutions and explores the rights of Indigenous communities as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The editorial remarks also outline the challenges faced by the editorial team, which included how to be responsible for the relationships the authors carried with them in their submission and how to represent oral knowledges. To address some of these challenges, a new article category—Conversations—was formed to reflect knowledge passed on in relational contexts. Hancock et al. explain that respect, care, relationality, extensive conversation, reflection, and responsibility to future generations were critical aspects of the editorial process. The discovery of 215+ unmarked graves of children who attended the Kamloops Indian Residential School centered the editorial team’s responsibility to respond to events outside of the academy. The team made the decision to pause publication to fully consider the impact of their work. Hancock et al. conclude by acknowledging that there is much work left to do in affirming the human rights of Indigenous peoples and that love and respect are crucial starting points for the path forward.

Joranson provides an overview of knowledge commons, Indigenous knowledge, and some of the ways that practices, discourse, and critical frameworks relevant to each do and do not intersect. The author posits that comparative analyses of knowledge commons and Indigenous knowledge reveal significant shared concerns about the documentation, dissemination, and preservation of knowledge; at the same time, she differentiates between the two, noting that further study of each also invites further consideration of the unique insights that Indigenous knowledge discourse and practices can offer on topics such as enclosure, resource scarcity, and differences between western and non-western information ecosystems. Briefly examining each of these topics with reference to existing scholarship on commons and Indigenous knowledge, Joranson reframes these conversations primarily in terms of the evolving role of librarians and other information specialists.

Kimmerer considers the relationship between scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge, particularly in the context of the natural world. She argues that both bodies of knowledge (and knowledge holders) are important for the study and sustenance of the environment. Kimmerer weaves together her research as a professor of ecology with Indigenous teachings; the latter derive from her own experience as a member of the Potawatomi Nation and in discussion with other Indigenous teachers. Kimmerer advocates for the importance of enacting Indigenous values of care, reciprocity, and environmental stewardship in the context of humans’ relation to the land, broadly, as well as in scientific study in particular. Overall, Kimmerer suggests that the current climate crisis is human manufactured but can be dealt with through a substantial re-evaluation of core values and practices and the requisite actions that follow such a re-evaluation.

Kristiani examines the challenges of incorporating Indigenous knowledge into Wikipedia, such as knowledge inequity and the structure of Wikipedia, and how they can be addressed to achieve knowledge equity. Kristiani argues that because Wikipedia is based on an open model where everyone can contribute, it has the potential to overturn the power structure of existing knowledge institutions. However, it is subordinated to a Western-dominant perspective, which results in Wikipedia being a mirror of the world’s biases. This is due to its policies and guidelines, which represent barriers for marginalized knowledge to be included, leading to a significant participation gap, particularly in contributions from women and Indigenous knowledge across Wikimedia projects. The author highlights two guidelines: notability, consisting of conditions that determine if a topic is worthy of having its article on Wikipedia, and verifiability, which determines the types of sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. These guidelines prevent knowledge equity because proving notability is difficult when some works lack citations from written sources, thus not meeting the standards of notability for Wikipedia. Additionally, the requirement of verifiability only considers written published sources, which excludes information and knowledge from oral sources. Kristiani argues that Wikipedia’s structure allows biases in the media to prevail and prevents the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge if it is not documented in written text and translated into a language like English. The author concludes by proposing some ideas for change. First, providing research grants to cover Indigenous knowledge and other topics underrepresented in Wikipedia. Second, expanding the definition of knowledge beyond just written forms and to create an audio library of knowledge that gives this medium the same weight as text. This will not only add more reliable sources eligible to be cited by Wikipedia but also support knowledge equity by bringing marginalized knowledge to the same level as the dominant one.

Kuruk examines existing frameworks of protection of traditional knowledge in regions across the world and evaluates the effectiveness of the selected structures. The book consists of fifteen chapters organized into four parts. Part I explores terminology used in discussions around issues of traditional knowledge, Indigenous peoples’ outlook of its protection, and the appropriateness of intellectual property for the protection of traditional knowledge. Part II gauges the degree to which international organizations engage with protection of traditional knowledge and assesses several international frameworks for protection. Part III reviews national and regional protection measures and includes chapters dedicated to exploring the protection regimes in Africa, the United States, and Australia. Part IV explores the ramifications of improving legal frameworks on traditional knowledge through complementary laws. Part IV also focuses on key approaches to protection which include customary laws, requiring disclosure of the use of traditional knowledge in intellectual property applications, and the use of mutual recognition agreements. Kuruk argues that customary law, which shares many characteristics with traditional knowledge, is better positioned to protect traditional knowledge than western top-down approaches and should be formally recognized as part of national legal frameworks.

Little Bear discusses “Aboriginal” philosophy, values, and customs and contrasts them to Eurocentric views. According to Little Bear, Indigenous philosophy is founded on a holistic and cyclical worldview and is process-oriented, which is reflected in Indigenous languages. Wholeness is a fundamental value for Indigenous communities and informs organizational structure with the extended family at the centre, rather than the immediate family. Little Bear compares wholeness to a flower with four petals representing strength, sharing, honesty, and kindness. Indigenous peoples instill these values, customs, and underlying philosophy through praise, renewal ceremonies, by example, experience, and storytelling. A Eurocentric values system is comparatively static, linear, and objective. These aspects manifest themselves through a hierarchical social structure consisting of specialists, the experimental approach in science, and the externalization of social control. Little Bear argues that instead of erasing Indigenous worldviews, colonization left Indigenous peoples with jagged worldviews: their consciousness became a space of competing values. Little Bear concludes by arguing that all colonial people have an integrated mind that flows between precolonized and colonized consciousness. This clash of worldviews stifles diversity in choices and keeps Aboriginal peoples from achieving harmony in their everyday lives.

Littletree, Belarde-Lewis, and Duarte discuss coloniality within knowledge organization and present a conceptual model for Indigenous systems of knowledge. Littletree et al. argue that to transform knowledge organization systems for Indigenous communities, the colonialism embedded in modern knowledge organization must be confronted: knowledge organization has an extensive history of being in service to the nation-state. Littletree et al. state that while “Native” and Indigenous intellectuals are no longer explicitly penalized for practicing their way of life, they are now subjugated in subtle ways which include being told by institutional gatekeepers that their ways of knowing are incompatible within the western bibliographic universe. Within this context, Littletree et al. present their conceptual model for Indigenous systems of knowledge, which takes the form of concentric circles: at the centre of the model is relationality/holism, and moving from the centre are peoplehood, Indigenous ways of knowing, expressions of Indigenous systems of knowledge, and institutions. Moving outward, the aspects represent increasingly visible aspects of Indigenous systems of knowledge. These layers are cradled by reciprocity, responsibility, and respect. Littletree et al. claim that institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums only address the top two layers of the conceptual model (expressions of Indigenous systems of knowledge and institutions), which is symptomatic of the narrow-mindedness of the settler epistemology. By failing to recognize the more central layers, especially relationality, institutions risk mislabeling objects and removing the context necessary to understand their meaning. Littletree et al. argue that centering relationality within knowledge organization is a decolonizing practice that creates space for Indigenous ontologies to emerge in colonial institutions.

MacLeod introduces the citation template she created in partnership with the NorQuest Indigenous Student Centre for Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers. MacLeod argues that the American Psychological Association’s and Modern Language Association’s templates for citing personal communications fail to capture the value of Indigenous oral teachings. MacLeod’s template for citing Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers in American Psychological Association’s and Modern Language Association’s style includes the name of the Elder or Knowledge Keeper, nation/community, treaty territory, city/community the Elder or Knowledge Keeper lives in, brief description or title of the teaching, the note “personal communication” (for American Psychological Association’s style), and date. MacLeod argues that these citation templates are a way to empower Indigenous learners to include community knowledge within academic systems and dismantle colonial systems that mistreat Indigenous knowledges.

Maina examines three multilateral forums concerned with the protection of traditional knowledge using a political economy framework: the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. This analysis found that member countries of these forums have failed to authentically consult with Indigenous communities on issues of traditional knowledge protection. The organizational structure of these forums means that even if Indigenous communities and interest groups are allowed to participate, they can only do so as observers and do not get to vote. Maina also found that there are great divergences between the agendas of state and industry stakeholders and those of Indigenous communities. Intellectual property tools are the main focus for state and industry stakeholders, while Indigenous communities see self-determination at the heart of protecting traditional knowledge. However, there is a clear unwillingness from state and industry stakeholders to discuss self-determination. Maina argues that the debate over the protection of Indigenous knowledge must be removed from these three multilateral forums and moved into a space where Indigenous peoples’ worldviews can be considered, as opposed to an intellectual property-based worldview. Such a forum requires Indigenous peoples to lead its formation and calls for internal self-determination.  

McDermott, MacDonald, Markides, and Holden examine the instruction of Indigenous knowledge in the Canadian public education system. They suggest that much work is to be done to decolonize ways of knowing and acting within public education. Moreover, McDermott et al. argue that many non-Indigenous instructors do not provide Indigenous education opportunities because they either do not feel it is necessary or do not feel that it is appropriate for them to do so given their non-Indigenous subject position. For the authors, non-Indigenous educators should be undertaking Indigenous education as a way of decentring European epistemology and acknowledging their responsibility within a decolonization and reconciliation framework.

Nadasdy shifts the focus of integrating traditional ecological knowledge from technical considerations to the political realm. Nadasdy argues that labelling Indigenous knowledge as traditional ecological knowledge constrains people’s thinking in important ways. The term “traditional” as used by non-Native people indicates that the cultural practices of Indigenous people are frozen in time and gives non-natives the ability to define more recent community practices as inauthentic. The term “ecology” conforms to a Euro-Canadian perspective which envisions the environment and humans as separate entities, therefore restricting what kinds of knowledge are relevant in any given situation. The term “knowledge” enables a distinction to be made between intellectual products and the cultural processes that give these products meaning. Because it uses these terms and is often invoked in management processes, the term traditional ecological knowledge tends to obscure the cultural context through which Indigenous knowledge is co-created. Nadasdy argues that this happens through (1) compartmentalization, where the holistic ethos of traditional ecological knowledge is broken down to fit within the categorical system of science or otherwise discarded, and (2) distillation, where traditional ecological knowledge is reduced to empirical representations which can then be (mis)interpreted by non-Native people. Drawing from Bruno Latour, Nadasdy argues that integration of traditional ecological knowledge and science is concerned with extending scientific principles into local communities rather than combining the two epistemological systems. For traditional knowledge to be fully valued, Indigenous people must be relieved of the burden of having to express themselves in ways that align with scientific epistemologies.  

Nakata critiques the binary between Indigenous and western knowledge and offers the concept of the Cultural Interface–the intersection of the two knowledge domains–as a productive way to think about how these knowledge systems are navigated by Indigenous peoples. Nakata argues that while different fields have varied interests in Indigenous Knowledge, capitalist motivations serve as the overarching incentive. Drawing on Arun Argawal, Nakata argues that the knowledge dichotomy is unsubstantiated and obscures the complexities of Indigenous and western knowledge. Nakata argues that for Indigenous peoples the Cultural Interface is not something that is picked up in a certain context or place; it requires constant negotiation. For Indigenous peoples to navigate the Cultural Interface, Nakata proposes they need meta-knowledge and the ability to articulate what is often sensed. Nakata moves on to discuss the opportunities and challenges of the web for Indigenous peoples, such as the web’s balance between visual, oral, and textual modes of communications, disruption of elite forms of publishing, and its use of hypertext present opportunities for Indigenous peoples. However, the web has the potential to reproduce colonial structures. Nakata concludes by acknowledging the complexity of the issues that exist at the intersections of knowledge systems.

Roy discusses the complicated question of “who is Indigenous?” within the context of Library and Information Science (LIS). Roy argues that the act of defining Indigenous people by non-Indigenous communities functions as a mechanism of control and is in conflict with Indigenous worldviews. She focuses on four preconceptions/misconceptions involved in defining Indigenous people: the idea that there are no Indigenous people in society, that everyone is Indigenous, the pattern of non-native people claiming Indigenous identity and cherry-picking romanticized aspects of Indigeneity, and the use of blood descendancy percentages as a determinant of Indigenous identity. These misconceptions have served the interests of non-Indigenous communities while simultaneously harming Indigenous communities. When considering the question of Indigenous identity in the context of library and information science, it is essential to recognize the importance of genealogies and relationships to homeland within Indigenous communities; for many Indigenous peoples, bloodlines are not a tool to determine identity but are rather connections to life. There are currently active library and information science organizations devoted to Indigenous issues, but their existence is largely unknown to library and information science professionals who do not engage directly with Indigenous peoples. Additionally, the growing number of Indigenous information professionals means the next generation may be more open to discussion around Indigenous issues. Ultimately, Roy argues that the best answer to the question “who is Indigenous?” is that “Indigenous communities know who their people are.”

Tuck and Yang challenge the superficial adoption of decolonization discourse and the misconception that decolonization is equivalent to other social justice projects. Both actions turn decolonization into a metaphor because they do not address the repatriation of Indigenous land and life. Drawing from a concept by Janet Mawhinney, the authors argue that metaphorizing decolonization enables different “settler moves to innocence” that deny or deflect complicity in settler colonialism. Six of these moves are analyzed in the article: 1) settler nativism, 2) fantasizing adoption, 3) colonial equivocation, 4) conscientization, 5) othering Indigenous peoples or describing them as at-risk populations, and 6) re-occupation and urban homesteading. By analyzing these processes, the authors develop an ethic of incommensurability that distinguishes decolonization projects from other social justice projects, which often implicitly seek to secure a share of wealth obtained through colonialism. Finally, Tuck and Yang apply this ethic of incommensurability by providing a list of publications that unsettle and challenge the cohesion of three social justice endeavors: Third World decolonizations, the abolition of slavery, and critical space-place pedagogies.

The United Nations Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in consideration of recommendations from the Human Rights Council, recognizes the imperative to promote the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples and reaffirms their contribution to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humanity. This document comprises 46 articles that elaborate on the rights of Indigenous peoples and individuals. Several articles within this section address the issue of generation and conservation of Indigenous knowledge. For instance, Article 11 promotes the right to practice and revitalize Indigenous cultural traditions and customs, establishing the States’ obligation to provide adequate mechanisms for this purpose. Furthermore, Article 31 enshrines the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop Indigenous cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions, as well as manifestations of their sciences, technologies, and cultures, including their intellectual property. Consequently, this resolution seeks to uphold respect and recognition of the rights and freedoms of all as well as democratic principles.

This blog post presents a variety of definitions of Indigenous traditional knowledge. In doing so, the author brings attention to the core aspects of this knowledge system. Drawing on Marie Battiste, the features of Indigenous knowledge include the significance of context, holistic knowledge, the ability to apply knowledge, interdependence, long-term time perspective, dynamism, and community culture.

Drawing on his experience as managing editor of Theytus Books, the first Indigenous publishing house in Canada, Younging proposes twenty-two guidelines and principles for adoption by writers, academics, journalists, and other editors engaged in work involving Indigenous Peoples. Younging argues that such a guide is necessary but also long overdue, given the historical and present-day issues he identifies as factors endemic in Canadian publishing and Canadian cultural production more generally, including ethnocentrism as well as “cultural appropriation, misrepresentation, and lack of respect for Indigenous cultural Protocols.” The book traces this problematic history while offering practical editorial and cultural advice rooted in discussions attentive to the diverse lived realities and shared struggles of Indigenous Peoples today. The closing chapters, “Terminology” and “Specific editorial issues,” again share practical advice—e.g., on capitalization, Indigenous colloquial English, and offensive grammatical constructions—intended to guide, inform, and reform writing and editing practices. In clear, straightforward language, Younging also provides concrete examples of how “western” terminology, editorial practices, and “legal regimes” have failed to adequately acknowledge Indigenous cultural protocols and traditional knowledge. Still, from the outset, he explicitly states that his own guide is not intended to supplant extant disciplinary style guides or publishers’ house styles (though he advises that when these conflict with Indigenous style, “Indigenous style should override conventional style and house style”). Additionally, Younging urges his readers to view his recommendations “as proposed principles and guidelines,” acknowledging that they will necessarily need to be adapted in the future to reflect evolving editorial sensibilities and ideas around Indigenous self-representation and culture. Even so, each of the principles outlined in Younging’s provisional guide are grounded in what Warren Cariou (in the book’s Foreword) refers to as “the Indigenous methodology of working from the basis of relationships”; cumulatively, then, the book’s principles serve not only as pragmatic yet human-centred responses to colonialism’s harmful legacies, but as reminders of the importance of longstanding Indigenous cultural values and traditional knowledge over and above the shifting editorial practices that these principles seek to transform.

Archibald Q’um Q’um Xiiem (Stó:lo- and St’at’imc) and Parent Nox Ayaaw´ilt (Nisga’a) discuss Indigenous storywork through exploring their own research practices and sharing Trickster stories. According to the authors, there are seven core Indigenous storywork principles, which include respect, responsibility, reverence, reciprocity, holism, inter-relatedness, and synergy. These principles are complemented by the Hands Back, Hands Forward teaching from Dr. Vincent Stogan. In gatherings, Stogan would ask others to extend their left palm upwards to symbolize reaching for the knowledge of Ancestors, and to put their right palm downwards to symbolize passing on that knowledge to others. This practice exemplified the importance of respect, reverence, responsibility, reciprocity, and intergenerational learning.

Fast (Métis/Mennonite) and Kovach (Plains Cree/Saulteaux/member of Treaty Four in southern Saskatchewan) discuss the community–researcher relationship within Indigenous methodologies. This relationship is explored in two ways: first by an analysis of the philosophical motivation of Indigenous community–researcher relationships, and second by a performative conversation between the chapter’s authors drawing attention to the dynamics of this community–research relationship within an urban Canadian Indigenous context. Fast and Kovach discuss the philosophical impetus of community-researcher relationships by differentiating Indigenous research and Indigenous methodologies: the former is research involving and serving Indigenous peoples while the latter is a methodological approach based on Indigenous knowledge systems. The authors then describe three critical dimensions of Indigenous research: the role of community in context to place, the importance of our own story as researchers to our relationship with community, and reciprocity as opposed to solely relationality within community-research relationships. Fast and Kovach emphasize the importance of self-situating, especially through establishing relational connections and the protocol of introductions. The performative dialogue serves to illustrate and expand upon these dimensions and stress the significance of community accountability. Fast and Kovach conclude by noting three central aspects of a researcher’s relationship within community when conducting Indigenous research: (1) the research relationship with community is a valued experience that enhances knowledge creation; (2) researchers are responsible for awareness of community protocols that embrace relationship, and for practicing humility and respect; and (3) researchers should not allow their needs to overshadow the benefit to the community.

Gaudry argues that traditional academic research is extractive, and that context, values, and on-the-ground struggles are lost during the process. Extractive research fails to acknowledge responsibility to communities being studied and instead is oriented toward the academy. This kind of research is especially alienating for Indigenous peoples. Guadry advocates for insurgent research which is predicated on the assumptions that Indigenous knowledge is a self-validating system. Insurgent research embodies four principles: (1) research is founded in Indigenous worldviews, (2) research outputs are oriented toward Indigenous communities, (3) research processes are responsible to Indigenous communities who serve as the final judges of the research’s validity, and (4) research is action oriented and seeks to function as a motivating factor amongst Indigenous peoples, especially the youth. Additionally, insurgent research should seek to reclaim and reframe Indigenous language. While the academy certainly poses constraints for insurgent researchers, the academic world offers important tools for reclaiming Indigenous knowledge and control. Guadry argues that insurgent research can motivate people to act, create the environment for change, and examine colonialist conditions.

Kovach explores Indigenous methodologies, the epistemologies they emerge from, and the contexts they operate within. Kovach advocates for a research framework that brings together Indigenous methodologies and epistemologies, as opposed to applying Indigenous methods to another culture’s philosophy. Kovach emphasizes the localized, tribal nature of Indigenous research, and resists describing a universal Indigenous epistemological framework. This decision minimizes the possibility of qualitative researchers co-opting Indigenous research. These topics are explored across nine chapters. Chapter 1 contextualizes Indigenous methodologies within qualitative research; Chapter 2 emphasizes the need for conceptual frameworks in research and examines how an epistemology based on Nêhiýaw Kiskêýihta- mowin, or Cree knowledge, fits within Indigenous research; Chapter 3 introduces the challenge of integrating holistic ways of knowing into conversations around research; Chapter 4 advocates for the adoption of a decolonizing theoretical lens that locates Indigenous methodologies within resistance research; Chapter 5 examines the intersections between knowing, story, and research; Chapter 6 explains the role of self-location, cultural grounding, and purpose in Indigenous research; Chapter 7 focuses on the rationales and application of particular methodologies within Indigenous research; Chapter 8 discusses the centrality of miýo-wîcêhtowin or good relations within Indigenous research and Chapter 9 explores the relationship between the academy and Indigenous methodologies.

In this interview, Ruckstuhl discusses issues with how research infrastructure has treated Indigenous knowledge and how it can evolve to support the pluriverse. According to Ruckstuhl, the pluriverse is about entangling worldviews and recognizing other’s systems of knowing as complex. Ruckstuhl advocates for the transformation of data practices and copyrights policies and for the implementation of the CARE principles to make research infrastructure more inclusive of Indigenous communities.

Shirley (Diné) and Angulo (Diné) discuss centering Diné epistemologies in their Indigenous research practices. Diné Indigenous knowledge and epistemology, known as Sa’ah Naagháí Bik’eh Hozhóón, is specific to the Diné peoples' place within the four sacred mountains. Sa’ah Naagháí Bik’eh Hozhóón is how the Holy Ones lived and is a way to continually learn how to maintain healthy well-being. Central to this way of being is hózhó: the idea that everything is connected, so people should make every effort to live a balanced life. When engaging in research with Sa’ah Naagháí Bik’eh Hozhóón, practices are inherently embedded in the domains of Nitsáhákees (thinking), Nahat’á (planning), Iiná (implementing), and Siih Hasin (assessing). Shirley and Angulo argue that practicing Nitsáhákees (thinking) requires adapting a decolonizing lens, situating self within the research, and navigating the force of western ideology and accountability to Indigenous epistemology. Nahat’á (planning) involves the application of knowledge. For Shirley and Angulo, nahat’á involved prioritizing reciprocity, exploring positionality, and relying on literature from other Indigenous scholars. Iiná is about being in the process of reaching maturity; in research this refers to the implementation of the study. Shirley and Angulo argue that this domain reminds researchers to appreciate process and emphasize respect, care, and humility. Central to their practice of iina was combining qualitative research methods with Indigenous ways of thinking. Siih Hasin is wisdom obtained through experience, skill, and understanding. Shirley and Angulo conclude by reflecting on the significance and value of Sa’ah Naagháí Bik’eh Hozhóó.

In this foundational book, Smith investigates the ways imperialism and colonization are embedded within the western conceptualization of research and the notion of “regimes of truth.” Smith also offers some ways to go about establishing methodological approaches to research that embody decolonization and supporting Indigenous peoples’ reclamation of Indigenous ways of knowing. In chapters one through five, Smith deconstructs the ways western research has transformed Indigenous peoples into the “Other”— there is a particular focus on history, writing and theory. In chapters six through ten, Smith unpacks how Indigenous communities might challenge and disrupt western approaches to research. In chapter eight, Smith offers readers 25 Indigenous projects or research approaches aimed at empowering Indigenous communities to reclaim their cultural identity and ways of being. There are strong themes of connection, revitalization, remembering, storytelling, and social justice throughout the projects. Smith’s concluding chapter emphasizes the lack of attention given to the questions asked by Indigenous communities and the importance of prioritizing the needs of Indigenous research.

Smith explores the colonization of knowledge, Indigenous ways of knowing, and many other themes from Decolonizing Methodologies. In this lecture, Smith centres the knowledge systems and history of Māori people and focuses on the sociological discipline and the university as an institution. Smith argues that decolonization is a process, not a product. She offers that one approach to decolonizing academic disciplines is asking the people who teach if they are willing to change the name of their field of study, the demographic of its teaching staff, and to reconstruct its curriculum from an explicitly decolonizing framework. Smith goes on to sketch the various reasons a discipline’s scholars would reject such propositions, many of which are based on colonial ideologies. Smith also explains what putting Indigenous knowledge back together again means for scholars. She compares this project to trying to put eggshells back together again without knowing what the original shape of an egg is. Smith suggests that what is needed to reconstruct Indigenous knowledge is the revitalization of and collaboration between a variety of Indigenous specializations.

The authors discuss their shared framework of Indigenous research and the role of relationality/K’é/Tdayp-tday-gaw in this research. They offer the following conceptualization of Indigenous research: a deliberate decolonization practice that the authors engage in as Indigenous people connected by shared values and respect for the reclamation of how Indigenous researchers seek knowledge. Each author adds nuance to this shared understanding by sharing their own research practices and perspectives. Leola’s perspective is founded upon the butterfly wings of Indigenous research: cultural sovereignty, love, relationships (K’é), and decolonization. Robin situates her research within the concept of Tdayp-tday-gaw, which is the plural form of family in Kiowa. Robin goes on to explain that there is a dimension of responsibility and protocol involved with family and kinship; there is a special responsibility to honour Elders and to adopt certain protocols for different types of family members. These protocols and responsibilities extend to Indigenous approaches to research. Robin prioritizes Tdayp-tday-gaw in her research practices as an individual through mentoring and sharing with others. Tiffany’s perspective is rooted in K’é which functions as both a noun and a verb. K’é refers to not only a person’s family relationships but also to how one should relate to others to preserve harmonious relationships that encourage wellbeing. The authors conclude by tracing their experiences through education, how those experiences intersect, and inform their perspectives as researchers and people.

Wemigwase (Waganakising Odawa) and Tuck (Unangax) explore how Indigenous Research Methods can be used within Indigenous communities, with a focus on participatory research. For the authors, a large motivation for getting involved with research was opening access for the next generation of scholars. For Wemigwase in particular, the desire to change the structures within the academy and have the credentials to make that change happen was central in her decision to pursue a doctorate degree. Tuck explains that at this point in her career she is less concerned about the boundary between participatory and “sort of” participatory work and is now focused on making all research practices more participatory. Tuck also argues that when it comes to participatory research, it is more important that the project is finished in a way that keeps partners in good relations than it is that partners are interacting every day. This is because within the context of participatory research a new project could emerge from any one research study. Citations within research practices are also discussed. Tuck explains that she has made the decision to stop citing those who are known abusers within her work and emphasizes that decisions around citation are political. Wemigase concludes by calling attention to how important the presence of Indigenous scholars in academic spaces are for students and how critical it is for Indigenous scholars to have freedom within universities.

Wilson explores the dynamics of an Indigenous research paradigm through academic writing and personal prose. Wilson addresses two primary questions in his book: (1) What are the similarities in the ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology of Indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia? (2) How can these features be put into practice for the benefit of other Indigenous scholars engaged in research? These questions are addressed across seven chapters. Chapter 1 explores how Wilson arrived at his research questions; Chapter 2 explores the broad approach to inquiry; Chapter 3 outlines how Indigenous research paradigms and related terminology has changed over time and the various principles of Indigenous research; Chapter 4 provides an in-depth description of Indigenous ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology; Chapter 5 explores various dimensions of relationality and; Chapter 6 discusses the ways relational accountability can be put into practice. In Chapter 7, Wilson uses his own research process to demonstrate what an Indigenous research paradigm looks like in practice. Wilson finds that relationality is the shared characteristic of Indigenous ontology and epistemology and accountability to relationships is the shared aspect of Indigenous axiology and methodology. Relationality and relational accountability can be practiced through choice of research topic, data collection methodology, type of analysis performed, and how results are presented.

The Collaborative Indigenous Research (CIR) digital garden functions as a virtual community archive that brings together two fields of research: participatory research and Indigenous research. Its objective is to promote and expand the field of collaborative Indigenous research, emphasizing ideas and online landscapes that grow slowly over time. To achieve this, researchers can contribute their own projects. The CIR digital garden includes different categories such as: abolition of policing and prisons, gender, health, Indigenous education, Indigenous ethics of research, Indigenous research methods, Indigenous science, among others. Additionally, this virtual archive is built with the purpose of being representative of the interdisciplinary and international scope of Indigenous participatory research and seeks to incorporate multiple disciplines and languages (it currently displays projects in English and Spanish).

The Decolonizing Description Working Group (DDWG) Final Report discusses the work carried out by University of Alberta Libraries (UAL) to improve service to Indigenous users by examining the descriptive practices of the university collections. Like other academic libraries in North America, UAL uses the Library of Congress Classification for collection description, which can have outdated or inaccurate subject terms. Therefore, the DDWG recommends collaborating with other institutions across Canada to develop and incorporate revised subject headings that represent Indigenous peoples and contexts, as well as working with Indigenous communities and partners to develop revised subject headings that reflect their contexts in Alberta. The report warns that the risk of not following the recommendations is alienating Indigenous users, but without appropriate consultation, existing community relationships might also be damaged.

The First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) is an independent, apolitical, and technical non-profit organization that supports First Nations communities in building data and statistical capacities and ensuring that each First Nation achieves data sovereignty. FNIGC makes sure that the data generated by First Nations communities is ethically gathered and used to meet their specific needs. They have established various teams for research and information, information governance, education and training, and knowledge translation. The Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) principles in particular give First Nations communities, the authority to control their information, and specify how their data and information are gathered, safeguarded, used, and shared. The OCAP principles encourage collaboration with local and regional partners, support information governance, and the advancement of First Nations data sovereignty.

FirstVoices provides online sites for Indigenous communities to share and promote their language. Over 50 language sites have been created by and for Indigenous nations, where they can share their language through dictionaries, stories, games, and songs, as well as provide information on their oral culture and linguistic history. Each Indigenous community manages their language site, which is usually created in collaboration between Elders, youth, and speakers. In addition to the website, FirstVoices has created an app to access these language sites and over 100 downloadable Indigenous language keyboards to communicate online with computers and mobile phones.

The Indigenous Curatorial Collective (ICCA) is an organization that supports and connects Indigenous artists, curators, and academics to increase their professional opportunities and build reciprocal relationships with larger arts communities. The ICCA also advocates on behalf of Indigenous curators and artists, and researches Indigenous arts and cultures. Their projects include roundtable discussions, artistic interventions, digital publications, and gatherings on topics such as accountability, resistance, and community care.

The Initiative for Indigenous Futures is a partnership of universities and community organizations encouraging Aboriginal artists, academics, youth, and elders to visualize and create the futures they want for their communities. The partnership has four main components: workshops, residencies, symposia, and archives. They support their goal by providing Aboriginal youth with creative and technical storytelling techniques, developing artistic and academic spaces for sharing Indigenous visions for the future, and preserving Indigenous digital art in an Indigenous-led archive.

K.I.N. is a blog created by a collective of international Indigenous doctoral students to share the experiences and challenges they face. The blog seeks to create a global Indigenous research community despite the geographic dispersal of Indigenous researchers. In addition to having blog posts with the experiences of different students, the blog also shares resources for academic writing and a series of webinar recordings on accessing deep Indigenous knowing amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Local Contexts is an initiative to develop digital infrastructure that supports Indigenous data sovereignty over cultural heritage materials. This project manages the Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Biocultural (BC) labels, which allow Indigenous communities to determine the conditions for digitally accessing, sharing, and using their cultural heritage in ways that respect community rules, governance, and protocols. In addition to the TK and BC labels, the project began developing the Local Contexts Hub in 2019 to customize labels directly on Indigenous data.

The Research Data Alliance’s International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group argues that current principles within open data are in tension with Indigenous peoples’ efforts to gain greater control and use of Indigenous data. To advance the self-determination of Indigenous peoples, the group advances the CARE principles: Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics. According to these principles, data ecosystems should be designed in ways that promote Indigenous wellbeing as the primary concern and empower Indigenous Peoples to benefit from and have authority to control such data. Those working with Indigenous data have a responsibility to openly and meaningfully indicate how their work will benefit Indigenous peoples.

The Urban Aboriginal Knowledge Network (UAKN) funds policy-relevant research about the experiences and issues of urban Aboriginal peoples. Although 60% of Aboriginal peoples in Canada3 live in urban areas, there is a knowledge gap in their concerns, experiences, and issues, which the network tries to fill with the goal of developing progressive public policies. UAKN has over 80 community, academic, and government partners and has funded 53 regional research projects across Canada since 2007. The network’s areas of expertise are community driven research, knowledge mobilization, knowledge of local community structures, and administration and development of research networks and grant processes.