Center for Indigenous Research, Science, and Technology (C-FIRST)
https://hdl.handle.net/1808/13733
2024-03-29T08:00:13ZIndigenous research sovereignties: Sparking the deeper conversations we need
https://hdl.handle.net/1808/34269
Indigenous research sovereignties: Sparking the deeper conversations we need
Johnson, Jay T.; Brewer, Joseph P., II; Nelson, Melissa K.; Palmer, Mark H.; Louis, Renee Pualani
This article seeks to spark a conversation and further debate through the 15 papers and 3 commentaries comprising this special issue entitled “Indigenous Research Sovereignty.” By inviting the authors to publish in this special edition and address Indigenous Research Sovereignty from a variety of viewpoints, we have brought together a collection that inspires, transforms, and expands on the ways in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers are engaging with Indigenous communities to address the research agendas of communities across the globe. Through our work together over the past 8 years, the editorial team have identified eight themes within this broad concept of Indigenous Research Sovereignty. This article provides an introduction to those eight themes in the broadest strokes, while the papers and commentaries explore and refine them with significant depth. We seek to spark a conversation, we do not intend to provide answers to any of the dilemma facing Indigenous communities as they engage, or choose not to engage, in research. Our primary goal is to express an all-encompassing concern for the protection of Indigenous Communities’ inherent rights and knowledges.
This article is part of the Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice special issue on ‘Indigenous Research Sovereignty’, edited by Jay T. Johnson, Joseph P. Brewer II., Melissa K. Nelson, Mark H. Palmer, and Renee Pualani Louis.
2023-05-23T00:00:00ZEnvironment and Planning F: Special issue on Indigenous Research Sovereignty
https://hdl.handle.net/1808/34268
Environment and Planning F: Special issue on Indigenous Research Sovereignty
Johnson, Jay T.; Brewer, Joseph P., II; Nelson, Melissa K.; Palmer, Mark H.; Louis, Renee Pualani
This is the 2023 special issue about Indigenous Research Sovereignty published in the journal Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods, and Practice, volume 2, numbers 1-2. It was edited by Jay T. Johnson, Joseph P. Brewer II, Melissa K. Nelson, Mark H. Palmer and Renee Pualani Louis.
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZMentoring Our Own Native Scientists: 2021 MOONS Workshop Report
https://hdl.handle.net/1808/32148
Mentoring Our Own Native Scientists: 2021 MOONS Workshop Report
Johnson, Jay T.
The goal of the MOONS workshop was to inform the Facilitating Indigenous Research, Science, and Technology (FIRST) Network of scholars, and other Native scientists, currently working on these issues with innovative ideas to aid in these efforts. The FIRST Network is an interdisciplinary group of Native scholars all working at the intersection of Indigenous and Western scientific traditions to explore how Indigenous communities are utilizing both traditions to meet their research needs, particularly regarding their efforts to sustain resilient ecosystems. The overall goal of this Network is to develop strategies for meeting the research needs of Indigenous communities, including the capacity to lead their own research initiatives.
The Mentoring Our Own Native Scientists (MOONS) workshop took place from September 19-21, 2018 at Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU). The purpose of the MOONS workshop was to discuss the many challenges Native students face along the academic path toward advanced STEM degrees, and possible solutions, such as mentorship and alliance building. There were 37 participants in the MOONS workshop who represented 25 institutions, of which 11 were minority serving institutions and three were international. There were 12 guest speakers, including four speakers from KU and HINU, three speakers from Hawaiʻi, and one from New Zealand. Additionally, three student associates assisted with notetaking and the recording of sessions.
The MOONS workshop was structured through a framework of identified challenges that prevent Native students from applying for, and completing STEM graduate degrees, and discussions that analyze potential solutions. The MOONS workshop participants identified and engaged in a discussion of four (4) challenge-based questions:
1. How to prepare Native undergraduates for graduate study?
2. What goes into developing and running an Indigenous student mentoring network?
3. How to assist non-Native and Native faculty in becoming advocates and mentors for Native students?
4. How to work with ‘gatekeepers’ within academia and to build alliances with Native organizations?
The discussions and findings from the workshop were compiled in to the MOONS Report, which includes recommendations for the four (4) challenge-based questions.
2021-08-25T00:00:00ZBridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada
https://hdl.handle.net/1808/31066
Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada
Alexander, Steven M.; Provencher, Jennifer F.; Henri, Dominique A.; Taylor, Jessica J.; Lloren, Jed Immanuel; Nanayakkara, Lushani; Johnson, Jay T.; Cooke, Steven J.
Background
Drawing upon multiple types of knowledge (e.g., Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, science-based knowledge) strengthens the evidence-base for policy advice, decision making, and environmental management. While the benefits of incorporating multiple types of knowledge in environmental research and management are many, doing so has remained a challenge. This systematic map examined the extent, range, and nature of the published literature (i.e., commercially published and grey) that seeks to respectively bridge Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research and management in Canada.
Methods
This systematic map applied standardized search terms across four databases focused on commercially published literature, carefully selected specialist websites, and two web-based search engines. In addition, reference sections of relevant review articles were cross-checked to identify articles that may not have been found using the search strategy. Search results were screened in two sequential stages; (1) at title and abstract; and (2) at full text following a published protocol. All case studies included were coded using a standard questionnaire. A narrative synthesis approach was used to identify trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps, and knowledge clusters.
Results
A total of 62 articles that spanned 71 Canadian case studies were included in the systematic map. Studies across the coastal and marine regions of Inuit Nunangat accounted for the majority of the studies. Whether the focus is on management and decision making or research and monitoring, the predominant ecological scale was at the species level, accounting for over two-thirds of the included studies. There were 24 distinct coastal and marine species of central focus across the studies. Nunavut had the greatest taxonomic coverage as studies conducted to date cover 13 different genera. The predominant methodology employed for combining and/or including Indigenous knowledge was case study design, which accounted for over half of the studies. Other methodologies employed for combining and/or including different ways of knowing included: (i) community-based participatory research; (ii) mixed methods; (iii) ethnography; and (iv) simulation modelling. There are a suite of methods utilized for documenting and translating Indigenous knowledge and an equally diverse tool box of methods used in the collection of scientific data. Over half of the case studies involved Indigenous knowledge systems of the Inuit, while another significant proportion involved Indigenous knowledge systems of First Nations, reflecting 21 unique nations. We found that demographics of knowledge holders were generally not reported in the articles reviewed.
Conclusions
The results of this systematic map provide key insights to inform and improve future research. First, a variety of methodologies and methods are used in these types of studies. Therefore, there is a need to consider in more detail how Indigenous and science-based knowledge systems can be respectively bridged across subjects while also recognizing specific place-based needs of Indigenous communities. Second, the work highlights the need to better report the demographics of knowledge holders. Further inquiry focused on the extent of knowledge co-production and assessing Indigenous participation across different stages of the research process would serve the research community well to improve future research and monitoring in support of, and to strengthen, evidence-based environmental management.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2019-11-14T00:00:00Z