An Anishinaabe Research Methodology that Utilizes Indigenous Intelligence as a Conceptual Framework Exploring Humanity’s Relationship to N’bi (Water)

Abstract

This article presents the utilization of an Anishinaabek Research Paradigm (ARP) that employs Indigenous Intelligence as a conceptual framework for qualitative Anishinaabek analysis of data. The main objective of the research project examines critical insights into Anishinaabek’s relationships to N’bi (water), N’bi governance, reconciliation, Anishinaabek law, and Nokomis Giizis with predominately Anishinaabek kweok, grassroots peoples, mishoomsinaanik (grandfathers), gookmisnaanik (grandmothers), and traditional knowledge holders. Drawing on Anishinaabek protocols, the enlistment of participants moved beyond the University requirements for ethics. This also includes “standing with” the participants in the act of inquiry, in knowledge, and continued relationships. The ARP for research emerged from Indigenous ways of seeing, relating, thinking, and being. This approach did not call for an integration of two knowledge systems but rather recognizes there are multiple ways of gathering knowledge. The article explains how “meaning-making” involves Indigenous Intelligence through Anishinaabek protocols holding the researcher accountable to the participants, the lands, the ancestors, and to those yet to come.

Dùthchas, a Scottish Gaelic Methodology to Guide Self-Decolonization and Conceptualize a Kincentric and Relational Approach to Community-Led Research

“…The third principle of respect mirrors calls for research to be answerable to the communities where the research takes place (McFadyen & Sandilands, 2021; McGregor et al, 2018; Ó Giollagáin & Caimbeul, 2021). This means culturally specific protocols—such as the offering of Asemaa (Tobacco) when seeking knowledge in Anishinaabeg contexts (Wilson & Restoule, 2010)—and local, community, and/or territorial treaties and agreements should be followed, beyond institutional ethics boards, where and whenever applicable (Chiblow, 2021; Lavallée, 2009). Respectful research is led by the community and by the participants who share their knowledge and expertise to ensure all research is mutually beneficial.…”

“…Land is not a resource, but rather a living entity wherein plants, waters, animals, humans, spirits, and more are interconnected (Bateman, 2009; Kimmerer, 2013; McGregor, 2018). This means more than humans, for example, the land and waters, should not be disregarded in ethics and be acknowledged and respected in the research (McGregor et al, 2018; Chiblow, 2021). Research conducted should not have a harmful environmental impact on the community (McGregor et al, 2020).…”

“…To interpret and analyze the knowledge—both “internal” as part of my own reflections and “external” (Kovach, 2009)—generated during the project, I employed qualitative Anishinaabek data analysis (Chiblow, 2021) alongside reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Qualitative Anishinaabek analysis involves several phases for coding: Bizindaage (I listen to someone); Ozhibii’igi (I wrote things down); Naanaagadawendam (I consider, notice, reflect); Nisidotaagwad (it is understood) (Chiblow, 2021). Reflexive thematic analysis is a flexible method that “emphasises the importance of the researcher’s subjectivity as analytic resource, and their reflexive engagement with theory, data and interpretation” (Braun & Clarke, 2021, p. 330).…”

A bridge to [em]power: A commentary on ‘collaboration at a microscale: Cultural differences in family interactions’

“…In sum, their work uniquely demonstrates collective (i.e., IKS) versus individualistic (i.e., Western) onto‐epistemological worldviews at a local scale, everyday level of daily practice. It is important to clarify that while relational ontologies are central to IKS, Indigenous communities are culturally diverse with differences in ‘protocols, languages, and …Creation stories’ (Chiblow, 2021, p. 4). In that light, Dayton et al also point out the dynamic inter‐community variation in the Tz'utujil family triads that challenge romantic essentialisms and the use of culture as a means of collapsing and simplifying Indigenous communities as one‐dimensional and static.…”

“…Similarly, Opaskwayak Cree scholar, Wilson (2008) states that research is ceremony and for the benefit of Indigenous communities, grounded in reality as relationships and guided by relational accountability, respect, reciprocity, and responsibility. In addition, Anishinaabe scholar, Chiblow (2021, p. 4) calls for a break with what she calls ‘dominant European colonial ideas and institutions’ by stating that decolonizing research designs must emerge from ‘Indigenous ways of seeing, relating, thinking, and being’. In line with Indigenous research paradigms, it is imperative for researchers to question how their studies from their design, to their execution are functioning in complicity and within a larger settler colonial logic?…”