Prioritizing Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge in federal decision-making: insights from faculty,graduate students,and tribal leaders

Abstract

In response to the mounting global climate crisis, the Biden administration began developing guidelines for incorporating Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge into US federal decision-making. Though Indigenous Peoples are the original caretakers and stewards of the land, colonization, breached treaties, and false narratives have affected self-determination, treaty rights, and land management. This has negative consequences on the environment, and health of all our relations. When considering the sensitivity of knowledge, information, and data about sacred cultural systems, many Indigenous communities are wary of the high potential of misrepresentation, disrespectful handling, and cooptation. These concerns only deepen with conversations about opening public access to Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge because such policies would allow for the broad sharing of data and its ongoing re-use. We assert that Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge must be incorporated respectfully, knowledge integration must benefit all Indigenous communities, and all Indigenous communities must lead in the process of incorporating Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge into federal decision-making.

Introduction

This work was co-created in a spring 2022 graduate course developed and taught by the corresponding author entitled, Applied Indigenous Research Methods: Considerations for Incorporating TEK into Federal Decision-Making. In this class, we participated in lectures, hosted by tribal leaders and experts, presented in graduate student-led journal clubs, and unpacked how some Indigenous communities use Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ITEK) in their governmental decision-making. The goal was to produce a collaboratively written document to share with key decision-makers at the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The final product is the result of key topics chosen and written by graduate students, aforementioned tribal leaders, and the instructor.

Indigenous peoples in the USA

According to the 2020 US Census Bureau, of the 331 million people in the USA, 9.7 million (3%) self-identify as American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) under one race or in combination of up to six races (US Census Bureau, 2021). The US Department of the Interior has recorded 574 current federally recognized tribes across 48 states, including Alaska (US Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2016, 2021; US Department of the Interior of Indian Affairs, 2022b). In addition, there are approximately 400 non-federally recognized Indigenous communities located in various US territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the US Virgin Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP], 2018; US Government Accountability Office, 2012). These communities include those who do not have formal government-to-government relationships with the US Government as a result of militarization and or policies that make them ineligible for federal recognition (ACHP, 2018; US Government Accountability Office, 2012).

The US federal government has unique treaties and trust responsibilities with each of these federally recognized tribes. In this context, tribes are sovereign nations under the US Constitution, and through treaties, executive orders, statutes, and court decisions. However, upholding tribal sovereignty and treaty rights has been historically and contemporarily challenged by bureaucratic dead ends, genocide, and blatant disregard for these legal obligations. It was not until the 1970s, under President Richard Nixon, that federal Indian policy declared a direct commitment to ending the Termination policy and moved toward a policy of Self-Determination. Over the years, this commitment has been unsteady at best and highly inconsistent across federal agencies. While any incremental change, both legally and socially, is not to be overlooked, federal commitments from US presidents and Congress have had broad, sweeping implications. Without being codified by Congress, executive orders can turnover as quickly as political administrations. Still, these executive actions have been an important tool to leverage opportunities for reclaiming Indigenous power at the federal decision-making table.

Since his inauguration in 2021, President Biden has signed a series of executive orders, memoranda, and directives that positively impact tribal nations. For example, the Biden-Harris Plan for tribal nations outlines a new US commitment to tribal relations. All executive departments and agencies have been directed to review this plan and take action accordingly. In addition, as mentioned in a November 2021 Memorandum, the Biden administration is currently developing guidelines for its commitment to incorporating ITEK into federal decision-making and policy processes (Lander & Mallory, 2021). Also, on March 16, 2021, the administration confirmed the first Native American, Deb Haaland, as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. These have all been welcome changes to Indigenous communities. Still, while the government acknowledges that ITEK is essential in making contemporary environmental decisions, most Indigenous Peoples understandably have concerns about collaborating with the government. These concerns are rooted in the long-standing historical precedence of the federal government collecting, citing, and misusing their information. To remedy this, first and foremost, a working relationship between tribal nations and the US Government requires acknowledgment of the harmful and traumatic legacies witnessed by Indigenous Peoples at the hand of these federal policies. As well, a genuine effort by the government to repair the current material conditions endured by Indigenous Peoples must be undertaken, combined with efforts toward accountability, justice, and reconciliation.

Current predicament: climate crisis

The USA currently faces complex, multi-layered environmental challenges linked to hundreds of years of resource expropriation and related land degradation. The current crisis highlights the gap in scientific research and resource management approaches that are rooted in experimental reductionism (World Health Organization, 2021). Now that centuries-old land management strategies have brought forth widespread global failures; a growing interest to rethink power inequality and ways of reexamining all our relations has emerged. As a result, many groups have begun to turn to Indigenous Peoples for their expertise, wisdom, and knowledge as a means to curtail the unfolding environmental catastrophes (Roothaan, 2019). Tribal leaders have long advocated for ITEK to be included in US processes and are finally gaining traction due to the urgency of the unfolding climate crisis. However, to foster the successful and equitable inclusion of ITEK into federal decision-making, there needs to be active work to disrupt well-established colonial dynamics and offer space for transformative and restorative work where Indigenous voices are at the forefront (Gagnon-Bouchard & Ranger, 2020). To address these challenges, an interdisciplinary approach that effectively and respectfully embeds knowledge plurality into the process will need to be considered. In the context of Indigenous Peoples in the USA, this will require a deep understanding of the history of tribal nations and the genocide and epistemicide endured at the hands of US Government policies and citizens.

Although US history begins with a war against a colonial power, the US Government itself is founded and grounded in colonialism (Deloria & Lytle, 1984; Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014; Miller, 2006). Colonialism is a deliberate act of land dispossession, displacement, cultural genocide, and persistent injustices toward Indigenous Peoples (Brave Heart, 1998). Specifically, US treaties signed with tribes were ignored and weakened by a long-standing history of violations and a refusal to honor agreements (Brave Heart, 1998; Heffernan, 2012; Jacobs, 2022; Walters & Simoni, 2002). To enhance and strengthen collaborative relationships between the US Federal Government and Indigenous Peoples, there must be an acknowledgment of the consequences that colonial policies, such as Indigenous removal, relocation, and forced assimilation, have had on Indigenous communities, families, and individuals. Moreover, these collaborative processes, if they are to be done in a decolonizing and respectful manner, will require established guidelines, new protocols, and frameworks that describe the ethical processes needed in the design, development, implementation, dissemination, and protection of new processes. These processes might expand on internal tribal processes such as tribe-specific codes, institutional review boards, and advisory boards (Kuhn & Lefthand-Begay, 2020).

In this work, we seek to discuss both the importance of moving toward ITEK, given the severe state of imbalance that the natural world is in, and the ethical considerations needed to approach Indigenous Peoples and ITEK with proper care, respect, and integrity. In short, though ITEK is a vital part of land restoration and rehabilitation, the authors advise the US Government to first center Indigenous Peoples and their sovereignty in efforts to integrate ITEK into federal policy. Following these recommendations is imperative to the success of ITEK implementation in federal policy because Indigenous systems of knowledge are embedded in Indigenous relationships with the land and other non-human beings, that is, ITEK, Indigenous Peoples, and the land are inextricably linked. Further, preserving and strengthening ITEK, while maintaining and increasing Indigenous sovereignty, can begin a process of justice, accountability, and reconciliation.

Methods

Who are the authors?

We have adapted the “Who are we?” section published by Barlo et al. (2021, p. 41) and intentionally crafted this section using a first-person perspective. However, each co-author has collaborated and provided input to ensure its accuracy and quality.

My name is Clarita Lefthand-Begay. As an Indigenous researcher, and a citizen of the Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation, located in the southwestern USA, I integrate both Indigenous research methodologies and western research methods into my work. Our interdisciplinary research team is a collaboration between the University of Washington and tribal leaders, consisting of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers who bring diverse perspectives and expertise to our project. Our team includes one faculty member, nine dedicated graduate students, and two prominent tribal leaders who share a commitment to advancing interdisciplinary research that centers Indigenous voices and perspectives. More specifically, we are composed of Indigenous leaders and experts in ITEK. Micah McCarthy is a former Chairman of the Makah Nation, a federally recognized tribe, located on the Makah Indian Reservation, Neah Bay, Washington, USA, and Michael Williams Senior is the former Chief of the Akiak Native Community, located in Northwestern Alaska, with whom I have maintained productive and collaborative relationships for over a decade. In addition, the co-authorship features a mix of students who are Indigenous, non-Indigenous, settler, White, and people of color who were enrolled in a one-quarter course at the University of Washington and received mentorship from me. This combination of different perspectives and insights bolsters the richness and inclusivity of our research topic and underscores the value of involving various voices in scholarly dialogue.

To emphasize the importance of the relationships I have cultivated and nurtured with tribal leaders, I would like to discuss how I first came to know these leaders. The collaboration with tribal leaders was made possible through a long-standing relationship between myself, Micah, and Michael, who have provided invaluable advice and mentorship to me for over 10 years. This relationship is evident in the work. I first met these mentors while I was a graduate student. They were instrumental in encouraging me to examine topics such as climate change, Indigenous knowledge systems, and decision-making. After I completed my graduate program and moved on to a faculty position, we continued to discuss ways to promote Indigenous thinking and values into environmental decision-making. It is from this foundation that our collaboration with tribal leaders came to fruition in this class. From my view, providing a platform for students to learn from and engage with these leaders presented an incomparable opportunity.

Planning the class

In December 2022, the instructor started planning a class on promoting Indigenous knowledge in federal policy decisions in response to the US Executive Office of the President’s memorandum (Lander & Mallory, 2021). During this time, the instructor had conversations with co-authors Micah and Michael, as well as colleagues working at US federal agencies about planning and carrying out the class amid travel restrictions and uncertainties related to COVID-19. These discussions informed the pace and content of the class.

For potential presenters, the most feasible option was to provide digital presentations to the class, allowing them to participate remotely while fulfilling their community and professional obligations. As a result, the instructor scheduled them to present to the enrolled students. By bringing these tribal leaders digitally into the classroom, the issue of Indigenous silencing in dominant literature was partially alleviated. Students gained firsthand insight into their perspectives, experiences, expertise, and knowledge. This is crucial since Indigenous people are not adequately or proportionally represented in the scientific communities. Without their voices and skill sets present in the classroom, it is impossible to truly center Indigenous wisdom and knowledge. Physically going into the field would be ideal, but it is expensive and impractical in the short timeframe of an academic quarter.

Inviting these leaders to engage with the course material and students through presentations helped to bridge this gap. After several discussions, Micah and Michael confirmed their participation in the class, while two others expressed interest but were unable to support as co-authors due to their employment policies. Unfortunately, the other person faced a health issue, and after rescheduling 3 times, their participation was postponed.

Indigenous methodologies

This project has worked to situate itself within Indigenous research methodologies, specifically, relationality as conceived of by Shawn Wilson (2008). I built upon years-long relationships with tribal leaders who were brought into conversations with students. Before submitting the article, these tribal leaders were asked for feedback on the article and if they wished to be co-authors, given their contributions in conceiving of the direction of this work and contributing to the scholarship.

This literature review challenges the traditional hierarchy of knowledge by giving prominence to the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, which has historically been subjugated (Walter & Suina, 2019). Through consultations with tribal leaders and examination of works by Indigenous scholars, we have prioritized the perspectives and experiences of tribal peoples as knowledge holders regarding US Government land management policy. The lead author initiated this project in response to the call by the Biden administration for input on the implementation of tribal co-management on federal lands. Our aim with this project is to shift away from the federal government’s use of western methodologies, such as the census, to collect data on Indigenous communities. Instead, we will employ a framework that compiles and synthesizes the feedback and knowledge provided by Indigenous peoples. This will enable the federal government to incorporate ITEK in decision-making processes in a meaningful and respectful manner.

Literature review and analysis

The student authors conducted an extensive literature review across disciplines, in conversation with Indigenous leaders and experts, Clarita Lefthand-Begay, Micah McCarty, and Mike Williams. We centered the voices, knowledges, and wisdom of Indigenous Peoples in the literature review process and in assessing and making recommendations for ITEK implementation (Burgess et al., 2021). Initial literature was suggested by the course professor, Dr. Lefthand-Begay, and additional literature for review was collectively identified, read, and synthesized alongside journal club-style presentations and conversations given by the aforementioned Indigenous leaders. These readings further contextualized the content and allowed for thoughtful and responsive questions to emerge in conversation with the leaders. The presentations delivered by the Indigenous leaders played a significant role in shaping ideas and conceptualizing the recommendations provided in the article. Therefore, the leaders are acknowledged and deemed central to us.

Data synthesis

We were encouraged to consider how they might contribute to various parts of this article, and once they picked a topic, we began to critically cohere sections together. During this process, we had unrestricted access to each draft via an online word processor and could comment or edit as needed. Numerous drafts were passed from author to author until a cohesive draft began to take hold. The corresponding author took primary responsibility of editing each section, but continued to update all authors on a daily, if not weekly basis. To converge on a final draft, we engage in reflexivity that led to conversations about the inclusion or exclusion of certain case studies and topics. In addition, such conversations were held with our co-authors to reflect on the author’s positionality, their relationship—or lack thereof—to community and knowledge, and their journey into embodying an Indigenous research methodology approach. These conversations are embedded into this work and were integral to the final article.

Ways of knowing

Western ontologies and western science

One of the biggest challenges to incorporating ITEK into federal environmental policy is that Indigenous and western cultures approach nature from opposite—and diametrically opposed—ends of the ideological spectrum. Western philosophies of environmental governance are premised on the assumption that resources can be secured through legal procedures that proffer the rights to use, extract, and harvest expropriated fragments of the lands, landscapes, and other non-human beings. Emphasis is placed on the rights to take rather than a responsibility to take care of and preserve the health of that resource for future generations. This rights-based concept of western environmental management looks at ecological health and capacity only after extractive needs are satisfied. In western ontology, humans are understood as the apex of creation; all other animal and plant life are seen as less significant in relation to man’s needs and desires. From this lens, nature is fragmented and seen as a resource, commodity, or raw material to be consumed and used to produce goods needed to fuel civilization’s progress. This is readily illustrated by mineral mining activities reaching back to the California gold rush, beginning in 1848, and extending forward to ongoing legacy issues such as the 2015 Gold King Mine spill in Colorado and the decades-old Red Devil Mine in Alaska, not to mention countless other mining operations that irreversibly scar the US landscape (Van Horne et al., 2021). These mining and extractive histories prioritized capitalism—and western values—under the auspices of human progress and civilization at the expense of Native people’s past, present, and future. Furthermore, western worldviews hinge on the idea of individualism, or the notion that one only needs to be responsible for oneself, emphasizing self-reliance and competition while simultaneously de-emphasizing the actual (inter-)dependence we have with each other and the environment. In this way, western ideology allows for individuals to pilfer and plunder the natural world and all its beings without bounds and without regard for nature’s survival, to the point of complete destruction. The destructive and reckless practices can be illustrated by clear-cutting and dynamite fishing. Such a dominating worldview has inevitably weakened our relationship with the natural world, our connections with and knowledge of natural rhythms and cycles, and any sense of (inter-)dependence with the systems within which we collectively reside. Western ideas of time and timelines tend to be centered around concepts devoid of natural knowledge systems. For example, fiscal periods forecast the future in decades yet fail to account for the life of the system itself. Another example is the inability to see how actions may have implications on the system for generations, hundreds of years into the future.

Although western science is heralded as a purely objective pursuit, the reality is that it is a quantifiable way of generating knowledge based on rationalism and empiricism, and therefore is, by its very nature, hegemonic. As a positivist research ontology, this way of thinking validates only what can be codified, materially measured, and reproduced. This way of knowledge tends to compartmentalize information and separate causalities into simplified relationships, thereby compromising larger ecosystem dynamics. Explicit theories and universal law from scientific discoveries are born from experimentation that “artificially force[s] nature to tell us about herself” (Deloria, 1999, p. 13). Of course, few would object to the medicinal and technological advances western science has yielded, yet with all its advancements in tools and techniques, the limits of its capabilities, namely the overt disavowal of the critical reality of our interdependence with nature, are reflected in our current, desperate climate state. As a result, western science’s reductionist approach to data gathering runs the risk of missing broader implications and overlooking relationships that affect realities that cannot be easily understood when viewed as independent variables, thus inhibiting our ability to intervene meaningfully. When the universe is understood only by what is narrowly perceived as rational, it dictates the kinds of questions researchers ask and limits the form in which answers can be discerned. “Science and technology reign today as the practical gods of the modern age; they give us power to disrupt nature but little real insight into how it functions” (Deloria, 1999, p. 3). By recognizing the limits inherent in western ontology, epistemology, and methodology, alternative ways of understanding phenomena through diverse knowledge systems become available, namely those of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous systems of knowledge and ITEK

Native Peoples have endured hundreds of years of epistemicide, or the attempted extinguishment of culture, through the enactment of colonial policies (Hall & Tandon, 2017; Madley, 2015). Despite these attempts, Indigenous Peoples have resisted and persisted by fighting for their survival and their futures, both of which require that they reach deep into their knowledge systems to strengthen their place in the world. Such knowledge is embedded within songs, prayers, ceremonies, oral histories, sacred languages, arts, foods, and an understanding of the connections to all living things including the memory of the treaty warrior legacies in recent decades (Shackeroff & Campbell, 2007; Standing Bear, 1933). Indigenous knowledge systems are inextricably linked with the natural world, which results in an Indigenous paradigm that places humans alongside non-humans with no inherent supremacy, emphasizing the interconnectedness and relationality of an integrated system that understands nature as fundamental to the healthy functioning of peoples and economies (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001). These relational worldviews are the foundation of ITEK and are reflected in the relationship Indigenous Peoples have with the land with which they live. In addition, ITEK is knowledge that is built, maintained, and passed on intergenerationally in collaboration with the land and non-human entities alike (Simpson, 2004). Therefore, tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and access to usual and accustomed lands must be honored for justice to be served, and to ensure the maintenance, preservation, and perpetuation of these vital knowledge systems such as co-management responsibilities and federal co-trusteeship.

Relationality and kinship as a strategy for addressing environmental concerns

Several Indigenous scholars have written about the significance of centering relationships and kinship in Native methodologies for data gathering and knowledge generation (Deloria, 1999; Kimmerer, 2011; Wilson, 2008). As Deloria states, “the Indian principle of interpretation/observation is simplicity itself: We are all relatives” (Deloria, 1999, p. 34). This notion is threaded through Native creation stories, language, identities, and, more generally, throughout Indigenous systems of knowledge. In this section, we provide a glimpse into how this notion has developed under ecological restoration, with an emphasis on the fact that thousands of tribal nations have been developing these methodologies for centuries prior to colonization. Since time immemorial, Indigenous Peoples globally have utilized ontologies, epistemologies, axiologies, and methodologies that work in concert with the natural world without carelessly harming these systems. These are the same systems that were targeted by epistemicide conducted through colonization that are now sought by that very colonial government to intercede upon the circumstances brought forth by colonization itself.

While modern scientific approaches to ecological restoration have made notable strides, an investment in restoring relationships between humans and place will be critical to restoring the balance needed to interrupt the climate crisis, since this connection “[is] the most enduring connection of all” (Kimmerer, 2011, p. 268). Moreover, ITEK-led restoration of relationships and ecology will bring forth numerous benefits for humans and non-humans alike including wellbeing, economic, cultural, and spiritual benefits. To contextualize the development of this conversation, we first discuss the maturation of ecological restoration to situate land restoration as a valuable relationship.

Janzen (1988) defined biocultural restoration as the involvement of local cultures as allies in restoration projects. Kimmerer (2011) deepens this notion by proposing eco-cultural restoration as actions “substantially guided and informed by the cultural goals and knowledge of the inhabitants of a cultural landscape, where the humans are active participants in the restoration” (p. 271). This is further situated by stating “the essential interconnectedness of land and people, where all flourishing is mutual” (Kimmerer, 2011, p. 271). These scholars highlight the importance of Indigenous Peoples in land restoration, who are, themselves, integral to the land and to ITEK.

Generally, from an Indigenous worldview, life is highly dependent on relationships between humans and other non-human entities often referred to in English as kin. The significance of these relationships is held in genealogical stories that consist of cultural values such as community-held notions of caring for our ancestors, relatives, and the earth. In many Indigenous cultures, kinships mark the mutual relationship between all living beings, from humans to animals to plants and the natural environment. Relationship, in this case, can best be understood through the concept of relationality (Deloria, 1999; Kimmerer, 2011; Wilson, 2008), which is, as Tynan (2021) writes, “how the world is known and how we, as Peoples, Country, entities, stories and more-than-human kin know ourselves and our responsibilities to one another” (p. 600). Through relationality, people in a society, through their relations with each other, hold responsibilities for each other’s wellbeing along with their own. In the case of many Indigenous Peoples, humans are responsible for the natural environment and vice versa, with humans heavily interdependent with the environment to be well and flourish.

Applying Indigenous concepts of relationality to the climate crisis has many benefits and would greatly enhance present strategies in use. Centering relationality and relationships would cultivate a moral center and holistic strategy that is currently lacking through a purely western science approach to the climate crisis. Moral and ethical drivers present in relationality would help to frame the necessary responsibilities of present-day humans toward each other while also encouraging that responsibility to go beyond just a limited group of species during a fairly small timeframe. Relationality invites the impetus and inspiration for change to rest on the health of the entire system such that humans and non-humans may return to a perpetually nourishing relationship. Restored relationships to the land require not only long-term rehabilitative approaches but also continual care. Care, from an Indigenous perspective, calls for consideration beyond just concerns for humankind and our futures. Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge restoration emphasizes the importance of anticipating the impact on others, present and future—human and non-human.

Ethical collaboration

Indigenous data sovereignty and open data

Not surprisingly, given the history discussed above, the production of data through research is replete with a long history of exploitation and exclusion of Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized communities (Hiratsuka et al., 2017). Similar to the extractive processes enacted upon the land by colonization, such as strip mining, so too have Indigenous Peoples been subject to non-consensual, non-reciprocal western scientific procedures that have left individuals, families, and communities living with legacies of harm and trauma (Walter & Suina, 2019). Due to the extractive approach of data collection and use, many Indigenous communities have justifiable ethical concerns about the who, what, where, and how of data collection, access, and use (Cooper et al., 2021). When we consider knowledge, information, or data about sacred cultural knowledge, many Indigenous community members worry about disrespectful handling and care, and the high potential of misrepresentation and co-optation by outsiders. These concerns only deepen with conversations about the potential of open access because such policies would allow for the broad sharing of data and ongoing data re-use (Cooper et al., 2021). For many Indigenous communities, the very concept of open access goes against well-established protective cultural protocols that are shared intergenerationally within Indigenous communities.

These legitimate concerns have fueled an important conversation in the area of Indigenous data sovereignty. Using a data sovereignty framework, data are owned by Indigenous Peoples, which allows them to address their internal needs and encompasses their right to govern and protect their knowledges, from its collection all the way to its dissemination and application (Cooper et al., 2021; Rainie et al., 2017). This framing is important in data governance because it centers the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples and their rights to protect and govern their lands, resources, laws, and treaties (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Rainie et al., 2017). In addition, data is a powerful tool that has implications for research, policy, and decision-making that address health disparities and equity needs of many communities (S. R. Carroll et al., 2020). S. R. Carroll et al. (2020) and H. E. Carroll et al. (2021) developed a framework called the CARE Principles, which stands for collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics to protect Indigenous Peoples in issues of Indigenous data (Hiratsuka et al., 2017). The CARE Principles were established to work in tandem with existing FAIR Principles—findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. CARE Principles highlight the significance of protecting data rights and honoring Indigenous knowledge and interests, while also supporting the intentionality of open data repositories and long-term storage (S. R. Carroll et al., 2020; H. E. Carroll et al., 2021). Together, these frameworks emphasize ethical protocols whereby Indigenous Peoples are prioritized in an effort to elevate data equity and justice (H. E. Carroll et al., 2021). We recommend that the US Government seek to become more sensitized to the CARE and FAIR principles, and similar Indigenous frameworks, and be more aware of the protections they provide Indigenous Peoples in any federal implementations of ITEK.

Decolonizing to indigenize federal decision-making and honoring Indigenous self-determination

The process of implementing decolonizing practices includes identifying and understanding the structural levels of colonialism that persist; working to deconstruct, dismantle, and address colonial power differentials; creating the space for indigenization to happen; and privileging Indigenous knowledge systems in transformative processes (Fellner, 2018; Smith, 2012; K. S. Tsosie & Claw, 2019; Tuck et al., 2014; Tuck & Yang, 2012). The act of indigenizing sets out to privilege Indigenous worldviews instead of colonial frameworks (Yamane & Helm, 2022). Moreover, indigenization happens when Indigenous Peoples lead their own efforts, are tribal nation-based or community-based with deliberate and meaningful community involvement, and when cultural protocols, such as intergenerational protocols that seek to protect community-owned knowledge, are prioritized. This type of work creates the possibility for Indigenous Peoples to lead the process, choose when and how Indigenous knowledge is shared, and lead in decision-making. For example, in the process of decolonizing research protocols, Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) suggested the use of four Rs—respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility, as a way to engage with Indigenous communities in a culturally grounded and accountable way (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991). Many additional scholars have emphasized the importance of moving toward the use of these four Rs, while contributing additional research values such as relationship, redistribution of power, management, and rights (Harris & Wasilewski, 2004; Kimmerer, 2011; Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991; Montgomery & Blanchard, 2021; R. L. Tsosie et al., 2022; Wilson, 2008). These approaches to research and relationship building should be incorporated into all steps of engagement with tribal communities, beginning with the formulation of a research question all the way to the dissemination of knowledge and data back into the community from which it was collected. With this in mind, decolonization and indigenization are paramount to the successful implementation of ITEK into federal policy and decision-making.

Disinformation and propaganda

Unfortunately, disinformation and propaganda have contributed to colonial harm endured by Indigenous Peoples, yet when we bring this up, it is often conflated with political lies or fake news, and we fail to equate such information to the tribal context. When the tribal context is levied, discussions of problematic information often center on how tribal members may have fallen victim to misinformation and disinformation about large-scale crises, such as election interference or COVID-19. So, when thinking about Indigenous communities, the limited literature that exists generally asks, how does misinformation spread through Native communities? But an equally important question is, how has misinformation historically spread about Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge that both bolstered the colonial project and continue to shape views and perceptions, often negatively, within settler communities?

According to Reddi et al. (2023) from the Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life (CITAP) at the University of North Carolina, different types of manufactured narratives about identity groups can be exploited to disempower those groups in service of White hegemonic power structures and settler-colonialism, which they call “identity propaganda” (p. 2). These propaganda narratives fall into three categories: othering narratives, essentializing narratives, and authenticating narratives. As far back as the initial contact with White European settlers, these narratives, particularly othering narratives, which are premised on structures of domination and alienation from the perceived norm, were employed to justify the taking and settling of land that already had Indigenous populations for millennia prior to European arrival (Reddi et al., 2023). Othering is crucial to advancing genocidal processes like displacement or the separation of Indigenous Peoples from lands and landscapes, for instance (Holslag, 2015). In the early 1600s, colonizers, more commonly referred to in the USA as pilgrims, arrived and settled in Wampanoag lands, deploying religious conversion as a means of othering the Native population, reducing their long-held spiritual beliefs to witchcraft and devil worship, while attempting to force their assimilation into a Christo-European worldview (Hilleary, 2021; Simmons, 1981). This assimilation required the forced abandonment of cultural values and beliefs, including spirituality, language, and overall ways of living (Hilleary, 2021). Native people’s relationship with the land, which did not involve commodification and ownership like the European colonizers believed, was one of the first values they targeted (Lacy-Bruijn, 2013).

John Locke’s (1690) Labor Theory of Property can be viewed as one of the earliest and most detrimental essentializing narratives about AIAN. Essentializing narratives exploit tropes and stereotypes about marginalized or non-dominant groups (Reddi et al., 2023). Locke believed that Native people had no right to their ancestral land because they did not apply labor to the land and therefore, in his view, used it wastefully or inefficiently (Locke, 1690). These assumptions were rooted in a purely westernized and European patriarchal view of land use, which functioned as an anti-Indigenous disinformation campaign, published and disseminated, shaping public opinion of Indigenous Peoples to the present (Madley, 2015). Once these narratives took root, they were used as justification for further displacement and epistemicide of Native people, resulting in policies like the American Indian Residential Schools, which were brutal and abusive sites of cultural genocide and compulsory assimilation of children (US Department of the Interior of Indian Affairs, 2022a).

In addition to spiritual othering and essentializing displacement, White gatekeeping of Native identity has been historically utilized as a disinformation tactic against Native people (Harmon, 2021). Authenticating narratives are identity propaganda narratives that are employed to call someone’s claim to an identity group into question (Reddi et al., 2023). First coined in the early 1700s, Indian blood laws or blood quantum were historically used to authenticate and gatekeep claims of Native identity by the US Government (Schmidt, 2012). Similar to the one-drop rule, which asserted that one ancestor of Black ancestry legally classified a person as Black, Indian blood laws originally attempted to measure Native ancestry and racial inheritance into percentages (Davis, 2001; Schmidt, 2012). However, in slight difference to the one-drop rule, where any Black ancestry was the justification for racial subjugation and enslavement, within Indian blood laws, the less Indigenous ancestry one had, the less claim they had to Indigenous identity, land, and sovereignty. Through these racialized constructs, over time, the US Government would be less and less beholden to tribal treaty rights (Harmon, 2021).

Despite these disinformation narratives having been produced hundreds of years ago, they remain pervasive and continue to be invoked to invalidate and discredit tribal sovereignty as well as the ability of Indigenous Peoples to govern their land as they have since time immemorial. We see these narratives emerge in contemporary examples, such as in 1994 during clashes between the Makah Tribe, an Indigenous tribe located in the Northwestern part of the USA, and conservationists over the return of the Makah whaling tradition. Conservationists embarked on a disinformation campaign, deploying othering and essentializing narratives, to discredit Makah ITEK of their long-practiced cultural traditions (Coté, 2010; Johnson, 1998). These disinformation narratives must be taken into account when considering why Indigenous knowledge systems and ITEK have been discredited in favor of western science.

Western science and philosophy are often viewed in the USA as the supreme form of knowledge, with technological and intellectual goals directed at having a mastery over nature (Deloria, 1999). This separation and subjugation of nature results from a philosophy centered on master subjectivity and the inherent dominance over what is perceived as the other, as Julietta Singh (2018) lays out in her book, Unthinking Mastery. Identifying mastery within a cultural setting “tends to produce deep divisions by erecting borders between the diverse elements of the world” (Gagnon-Bouchard & Ranger, 2020, p. 45). For example, identifying mastery would reflect the dichotomy between reason and emotion, culture and nature, mind and body, civilized and savage, and men and women (Gagnon-Bouchard & Ranger, 2020; Singh, 2018). These dichotomies are often set against each other, creating subordination and superiority that are put forth as a natural order and often lead to various forms of hierarchy. As a result of colonialism, Indigenous Peoples have long been subjugated through false dichotomies that now must be rectified if ITEK will prove to be a successful strategy for addressing the climate crisis.

Conclusion

While it is progress for the US Government to recognize the need to incorporate Indigenous knowledge systems into federal decision-making, a concerted effort to provide the space for equitable and authentic collaboration is also imperative. Generally, an Indigenous perspective on decision-making structures looks at co-management, not as just the management of resources and the environment, but as a way of promoting and honoring a network of human and non-human relationships. This requires a departure from western individualism and a move toward collectivism, including an intentional coordination between non-Indigenous Peoples, the federal government, and strong Indigenous leadership to create the spaces needed for respect, trust, and realistic relation-building to grow. When researching the effectiveness of environmental co-management with First Nations and the Canadian government, Natcher and colleagues (2005) noted that “because [western members] have been socialized into using specific cultural patterns, for example individualistic elements, switching to collectivist behavior will require the suppression of socialized tendencies” (p. 248). If the harmful legacies endured by Indigenous Peoples in the USA are not addressed, respected, and remediated, distrust will brew and give way to tensions and group conflicts that could lead to the government repeating the problems of the past.

In addition to addressing past harms, we must also work to alleviate current ones. In particular, the following drastic changes were brought forth by the increasing climate crisis: disrupted harvests, erosion, extreme droughts, harsher climates, changes in hunting and fishing patterns, increased wildfires, melting glaciers and permafrost, rising sea levels, and water insecurity. As a result of these effects, “the global community is soliciting the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples as a tool for progress” (Robinson et al., 2021). As Robinson et al. (2021, p. 16) noted, “Indigenous knowledge must not be mere data that can be slotted into exogenous scientific models.” While environmental change cannot be avoided, given the now constant interaction between humans, non-humans, and the land, the ongoing crisis has illuminated the invaluable contributions of Indigenous knowledge and worldviews. Moreover, if ITEK is harnessed for the benefit of non-Indigenous Peoples only, this would repeat extractive practices perpetuated during colonization and widen the disparity and injustice already experienced by Indigenous Peoples. Thus, Indigenous Peoples and their sovereignty must be valued and understood as inseparable from ITEK to avoid further marginalization. Doing so would improve the condition of the climate and environment for the benefit of us all.

Furthermore, the experiences and worldviews of Indigenous Peoples in the USA have been consistently underrepresented and misunderstood. It is crucial to acknowledge and appreciate the immense value of ITEK in decision-making processes, not only for policymakers and federal agencies but within our educational systems. Addressing the lack of education around the political status of tribal nations in the USA is essential to ensuring meaningful engagement and involvement of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making at all levels. By valuing ITEK and strengthening cultural competency, decision-makers can improve engagement and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples and help bridge the gaps in understanding and recognition of their experiences.

While the need to strengthen ITEK knowledge and implementation is increasingly urgent as federal agencies and their employees seek to acquire this expertise, the influx of demand for ITEK skills may place a significant burden on tribal leaders and community members who may be underresourced to meet such needs. Without adequate support, these communities could become overwhelmed by the unexpected surge. Therefore, federal agencies should consider creating mechanisms that enable them to understand varying perspectives of tribal communities on the support they need and how they want to address these demands at a local level. This will be an essential component for federal agencies to implement to ensure that they can support tribal communities in a way that aligns with their needs and preferences.

Finally, in these recommendations, it is important to consider the inclusion of non-federally recognized tribal nations and Indigenous territorial nations in leading ITEK and indigenizing restoration efforts (ACHP, 2018; Hernandez & Vogt, 2020). Although non-federally or non-state recognized Indigenous Peoples under these statutes are integral to leading and informing decision-making under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (ACHP, 2018), federal recognition laws are exclusive in nature and limited in the services they provide for Indigenous communities under US occupation. Nonetheless, Section 106 requires a process that includes Indigenous voices in the discussion of indigenizing restoration practices (ACHP, 2018; Hernandez & Vogt, 2020). This should mean all Indigenous voices—not just those with federal recognition. For example, when it comes to climate justice, the Pacific Island nations are directly impacted by rising sea levels as their lands are becoming submerged and uninhabitable (Enari & Jameson, 2021). Regardless of federal status, it is important that all Indigenous communities under US occupation are involved in leading incorporation of ITEK into federal decision-making, while also honoring tribal sovereignty and treaty rights.