First Nations communities in Canada are disproportionately affected by poor water quality. As one example, many communities have been living under boil water advisories for decades, but government interventions to date have had limited impact. This paper examines the importance of using Indigenous research methodologies to address current water issues affecting First Nations. The work is part of larger project applying decolonizing methodologies to Indigenous water governance. Because Indigenous epistemologies are a central component of Indigenous research methods, our analysis begins with presenting a theoretical framework for understanding Indigenous water relations. We then consider three cases of innovative Indigenous research initiatives that demonstrate how water research and policy initiatives can adopt a more Indigenous-centered approach in practice. Cases include (1) an Indigenous Community-Based Health Research Lab that follows a two-eyed seeing philosophy (Saskatchewan); (2) water policy research that uses collective knowledge sharing frameworks to facilitate respectful, non-extractive conversations among Elders and traditional knowledge holders (Ontario); and (3) a long-term community-based research initiative on decolonizing water that is practicing reciprocal learning methodologies (British Columbia, Alberta). By establishing new water governance frameworks informed by Indigenous research methods, the authors hope to promote innovative, adaptable solutions, rooted in Indigenous epistemologies.

In this article, we share words spoken by Aboriginal elders from Saskatchewan, Canada, in response to the research question, “What would you like non-Aboriginal health care providers to know when providing end-of-life care for Aboriginal families?” Our purpose in publishing these results in a written format is to place information shared by oral tradition in an academic context and to make the information accessible to other researchers. Recent theoretical work in the areas of death and dying suggests that cultural beliefs and practices are particularly influential at the end of life; however, little work describing the traditional beliefs and practices of Aboriginal peoples in Canada exists to guide culturally appropriate end-of-life care delivery. Purposive sampling procedures were used to recruit five elders from culturally diverse First Nations in southern Saskatchewan. Key informant Aboriginal elder participants were videotaped by two Aboriginal research assistants, who approached the elders at powwows. Narrative analysis of the key informant interview transcripts was conducted to identify key concepts and emerging narrative themes describing culturally appropriate end-of-life health care for Aboriginal families. Six themes were identified to organize the data into a coherent narrative: realization; gathering of community; care and comfort/transition; moments after death; grief, wake, funeral; and messages to health care providers. These themes told the story of the dying person's journey and highlighted important messages from elders to non-Aboriginal health care providers.

Indigenous peoples around the world are concerned about the long-term impacts of industrial activities and natural resource extraction projects on their traditional territories. Environmental impact studies, environmental risk assessments (EAs), and risk management protocols are offered as tools that can address some of these concerns. However, these tools are not universally required in jurisdictions, and this Forum intervention considers whether these technical tools might be reshaped to integrate Indigenous communities’ interests, with specific attention to traditional knowledge. Challenges include unrealistic timelines to evaluate proposed projects, community capacity, inadequate understanding of Indigenous communities, and ineffective communicatio, all of which contribute to pervasive distrust in EAs by many Indigenous communities. Despite efforts to address these problems, substantive inequities persist in the way that EAs are conducted as infringement continues on constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. This article highlights challenges within the EA process and presents pathways for improving collaboration and outcomes with Indigenous communities.

This paper examines the multiple oppressions faced by Aboriginal women as a result of Canada's sexist and racist colonial past. We explore the destructive affects of colonization on gender relations and societal structures and argue that Aboriginal women suffer higher rates of poverty, ill-health, violence and sexual exploitation than non-Aboriginal women as a result. The Sisters in Spirit Campaign (2004) and Amnesty International's "Stolen Sisters" report (2004) illustrate how violence is a result of the social and economic marginalization of Aboriginal women. Short term solutions focus on serious jail sentences and fines on those who procure, exploit and prepetrate crimes on girls and women while long term solutions must address the elimination of poverty among Aborignal women while simultaneously revaluing Aborignal women and their culture. Unless these underlying causes of poor health for Aboriginal women are addressed there is little chance of improvement.

No abstract

No abstract

Over the past several years, academic discourse has included discussions around improving research methodologies, particularly related to Indigenous people. Using Western research methodologies and methods when undertaking health research with Indigenous people, in the direction of Indigenous communities, has not been very effective. This is due to the fact that Western research methodologies do not address the need to foster relationships, mutual respect, and reciprocity. Engaging Indigenous communities empowers them to take an active role in how the research is conducted and ensures that the research is relevant to their communities. Engagement with Indigenous communities is also important during the analysis of qualitative data in the form of interviews, focus groups, and sharing circles. Without adequate engagement, data analysis often reverts back to Western methods, leaving the community out of the data analysis process. Bartlett et al. developed the “Collective Consensual Data Analytic Procedure” (CCDAP) in 2006 to address the lack of community involvement in the data analysis process. Analyzing the qualitative data using a community panel to reach a group consensus reduces the possibility of biases that any one person could bring to the research. Furthermore, group participation helps foster relationships and camaraderie within Indigenous communities. The process outlined by Dr. Bartlett could however become tedious and lengthy when dealing with a large number of interviews and data entries. This is why the CCDAP process was streamlined by first doing a thematic analysis of the data using the NVivo software. Following the thematic analysis, digitalization was added to the process by the way of Microsoft PowerPoint presentation and Excel spreadsheet. This made it quicker and easier to perform the analysis remotely using any videoconferencing platform that allows for screen sharing.

Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues.