Stitching Together My Anishinaabe Research Paradigm: An Approach to Storytelling With Algonquin Ikwewag (Women) and Gender-Diverse People in Mattawa and North Bay,Ontario

Abstract

This article reviews an Anishinaabe research paradigm that structures a storytelling project with Algonquin Anishinaabekwewag and gender-diverse people from the Mattawa and North Bay area in Ontario, Canada. This Anishinaabe research paradigm contains an ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology that are informed by Anishinaabe worldviews and values, participants’ stories, as well as the knowledges and experiences the first author brings to the project as a mixed-ancestry Algonquin Anishinaabekwe. With a ribbon skirt framework of data analysis, analytical approaches from multiple knowledge systems are stitched together to form complex and cohesive stories. The methodology is guided by principles of ownership, control, access, and possession, the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans (Chapter 9), as well as Anishinaabe relational accountability which honours relationships with all of Creation. Axiology is further informed by Mino-Bimaadiziwin and Anishinaabe Original Instructions, and is expressed through Anishinaabe jiimaan (canoe) teachings and values of respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility, and reverence. Making space for Anishinaabe research paradigms that prioritize Anishinaabe ways of knowing and living is a powerful way to decolonize the research process and affirm the continuity of Anishinaabe lifeways.

Keywords

community-based research narrative research indigenous feminism methods in qualitative inquiry arts-based methods

Introduction

A paradigm, or worldview, is a continuously shifting system of cognitive, affective, corporeal, and spiritual knowledges and beliefs that influence research and are expressed through theory and practice (Kovach, 2010). Paradigms shape a researcher’s ways of knowing, being, and doing, and in turn are influenced by the researcher and their relations (Absolon, 2011). In this sense, worldviews are circular and reciprocal, and formed over a lifetime in fluid, overlapping, and contradictory ways as they interact with other paradigms (Gehl, 2017; Hart, 2010).

The articulation of Indigenous research paradigms in academia stems from a long history of research on, with, and by Indigenous peoples. Importantly, Indigenous peoples have practiced their own research with their respective worldviews since time immemorial. However, Indigenous research has largely been delegitimized by Euro-Western theories and practices of what research and knowledge must be (Castleden et al., 2012). Indigenous peoples were not viewed as researchers with their own distinct research processes, but as primitive subjects of study for the benefit of Euro-Western academic institutions (Smith, 1999). However, increasingly since the mid-20^th century, Indigenous scholars and activists have challenged the ideological and theoretical assumptions underpinning research on Indigenous peoples, advocating for research that affirms Indigenous knowledges and realities and provides tangible benefit to communities (Absolon, 2011).

Indigenous scholars have described this shift as a process of decolonizing and Indigenizing research approaches, whereby Indigenous peoples recenter, reclaim, and rebuild their ways of knowing, living, and being that were challenged in the context of colonialism (Pidgeon, 2019; Walters et al., 2009). As Chilisa (2020) notes:

Decolonization and Indigenization of dominant research approaches entail attempts to resist universalized knowledge, critique Euro-Western research approaches, and invoke Indigenous knowledge systems of the colonized Other to inform research methodologies that are inclusive of all knowledge systems and respectful of the researched. (p. 26)

More recently, Indigenous scholars have articulated their Indigenous research paradigms in the literature as a means of decolonization and Indigenization and to bring Indigenous worldviews out of the academic margins (Hart, 2010; Strega & Brown, 2015). Since the 1990s, several Indigenous scholars have published work detailing research with Indigenous research paradigms distinct to their specific cultures (Absolon, 2011; Bell, 2018; Bishop, 1998; Chiblow, 2021; Chilisa, 2012, 2020; Gehl, 2014, 2017; Hart, 2010; Held, 2019; Juutilainen et al., 2020; Kovach, 2009, 2015; McGregor, 2018; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 1999; Wilson, 2008). Prioritizing Indigenous paradigms has worked to address privilege and power imbalances in colonial-Indigenous relationships in the academy and within the global context (Hart et al., 2017). Taking up an Indigenous paradigm in research also creates opportunities to influence Western paradigms that may be harming Creation, such as those that have historically devalued and objectified women and land (Gehl, 2017).

Indigenous research paradigms are diverse because they are dependent on the lifeways of people involved in the research. For example, Wilson (2008) describes Indigenous research paradigms as flexible structures that contain a distinct ontology (perception of reality), epistemology (way of knowing), axiology (set of morals or ethics), and methodology (process(es) of gathering knowledge). While this framework has appealed to many, Indigenous researchers have also created individualized conceptual frameworks based on their own knowledges and experiences such as Absolon’s petal flower framework (2011) or Bell’s bundle bag filled with sacred Anishinaabe tools for research (2018).

Many Indigenous researchers who are utilizing their own unique Indigenous research paradigms are connected through a shared principle of relationality and an ethic of relational accountability (Wilson, 2001). However, while there are similarities between Indigenous paradigms, there is no singular, pan-Indigenous paradigm that can be taken up in research – each researcher must reflect on their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values in relation to place and person, shaped by their respective knowledges stemming from language, relationships with Creation, traditional and contemporary teachings and stories, spirituality, and conceptualizations of the world (Fraser & O’Neill, 2021; McGuire-Adams, 2020). These elements balance to form a worldview that permeates through every aspect of the project (Kovach, 2015). As the diverse body of work around Indigenous research paradigms grows, scholars continue to develop paradigms that represent their unique worldviews, while decolonizing and Indigenizing the academic space around them.

This article describes the Anishinaabe research paradigm that the first author (KP) has taken up in a research project centered on stories of colonialism and resistance among Algonquin women and gender-diverse people from the Mattawa and North Bay area in Ontario, Canada. All other co-authors acted as Oshkaabewisag (helpers) who reviewed research findings and contributed to the editing process for publication. In this paper, KP discusses the components of her Anishinaabe research paradigm following Wilson’s (2008) ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology framework, and how she embodies Anishinaabe worldviews and values in her work as an Algonquin Anishinaabekwe researcher. Her approach is guided by Anishinaabe worldview grounded in Mino-Bimaadiziwin, the Seven Grandfather Teachings, the “Four Rs,” and relational accountability articulated through Anishinaabe jiimaan (canoe) teachings. Storytelling with Algonquin women and gender-diverse people within an Anishinaabe research paradigm is an example of decolonizing and Indigenized research and is a powerful and empowering form of relationship-building and knowledge-sharing.

Positionality

Anishinaabeg recognize knowledge and theory as personal and each individual has a responsibility to make meaning based on their name, Clan, community, personal gifts, and life experiences in the context of collective Anishinaabeg knowledge systems (Simpson & Manitowabi, 2013). For this reason, clarifying positionality is critically important when articulating a research paradigm. Further, introducing and locating oneself is a key aspect of relationality as it identifies who a researcher is, where they come from, who their relations are, and what their roles and responsibilities are (Juutilainen et al., 2020). Positioning oneself in the research facilitates transparent communication of a researcher’s background and intentions, and helps establish trust and respect in research relationships (Chiblow, 2021). Defining positionality is also a way for the researcher to critically examine themselves as one body within a complex set of relationships that has been unavoidably influenced by colonialism; it is a way for the researcher to begin to decolonize themselves as they engage in meaningful work (McGuire-Adams, 2020).

With that said, I would like to introduce myself: Kwey, Kaitlyn nindizhinikaaz. Maang nidoodem. Mattawa nindonjibaa. Portland endaayaan.¹ My name is Kaitlyn and I am from the Loon Clan. I am a mixed-ancestry Anishinaabekwe with European and Algonquin ancestry; my Algonquin ancestry is from Mattawa and I am currently enrolled as a member of the Mattawa/North Bay Algonquin collective within Algonquins of Ontario. I am also a status Indian who is registered through the Indian Act under General List/Sudbury. Though I am recognized as an Indian by the federal government, I do not belong to a recognized First Nation in Canada as things are currently articulated within the Act. My position demonstrates the complicated nature of Algonquin identity in Canada at present.

My mother is from Mattawa, but I grew up in Rideau Lakes. As such, I have a relationship with the urban Indigenous community within Kingston, Ontario. Like many Indigenous peoples living off-reserve, I did not grow up immersed in my Indigenous culture and came to more fully embrace my Indigeneity later in life. As a result, I did not grow up learning and using the Algonquin language and would now consider myself a beginner language learner. Instead, the majority of my teachings were rooted in the dominant Western education system, where I completed an undergraduate and master’s degree to become a registered dietitian in Canada. Ultimately, I am an Algonquin woman who has been influenced by multiple systems of knowledge and my ways of knowing mimic the land at Matawang (Mattawa) – a place recognized as the “meeting of the waters” or “where the waters divide,” acknowledging the confluence of the Ottawa and Mattawa Rivers (Lawrence, 2012).

Defining an Anishinaabe Research Paradigm

My Anishinaabe research paradigm is the wholistic expression of my heart, body, mind, and spirit. It encompasses my multiple sites of knowledge and culture and is fundamentally rooted in the lands where I come from and belong to. As someone who did not grow up wholly engaged with Algonquin culture, I struggled with the task of distinguishing which aspects of my life would be permitted to contribute to a distinctly Indigenous research paradigm. And similarly, what important cultural knowledges am I missing? If I come to the research table with mixed knowledges, how could I possibly develop a paradigm that is distinctly Anishinaabe? Would I need to classify my paradigm as “Métis” or “mixed” (Gone, 2019)?

Importantly, I consider an Indigenous research paradigm to be a shifting, dynamic entity that is not isolated from all other systems of knowledge. Indigenous research paradigms exist within a spectrum rather than a binary of essentialized existence (i.e. Western vs. Indigenous) (Allen et al., 2021). And, in my view, there is no singular, “pure” Anishinaabe identity or knowledge system (Gone, 2022; Windchief & Cummins, 2022). Basil Johnston notes, (as rearticulated by Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair), “Anishinaabeg are a body of diverse people embodying countless subjectivities, experiences, and perspectives,” who form a collective existence through the development of relationships with one another and all of Creation (Sinclair, 2013). Anishinaabe identity, knowledge, and culture are not static in nature, whereby some aspects should be deemed more “traditional,” “authentic,” or valid than others based on their similarities to an idealistic, uncontaminated, ambiguous time of precontact (Richotte, 2013). Anishinaabe lifeways are alive, constantly changing, and rooted in relationship. Our worldviews continuously shape-shift alongside researchers, communities, and Nations, just as Indigenous knowledges in general have adapted in the context of colonialism (Kovach, 2015). Anishinaabe knowledges and research paradigms are informed by the past through our sacred stories, language, spirit, and ceremony, and they grow and adapt in the present in preparation for an Anishinaabeg future (Borrows, 2013). An Anishinaabe research paradigm does not need to be “pure” in order to be distinctly Anishinaabe.

With this in mind, my Anishinaabe research paradigm is not independent from Western academic and activist influences. First, I have decided to structure my paradigm using Wilson’s (2008) paradigmatic research framework involving an ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology. Using this framework offers a way to contribute to a growing body of research that asserts Indigenous ways of knowing into dominant academic discourses in recognizable terms, thereby contributing to decolonizing and Indigenizing research practices (Hart, 2010; Hart et al., 2017).

My Anishinaabe research paradigm is also influenced by Indigenous feminism, anti-colonial/decolonizing, and anti-oppressive theories. This is congruent with the field of Indigenous methodologies broadly, which has, since the 1960s, developed alongside theories and methodologies within the transformative research paradigm such as critical theory, community-based participatory research, and feminist disciplines (Chilisa, 2020). As noted earlier, Indigenous research paradigms collectively recognize colonialism as a key contributor to violence and oppression against Indigenous peoples, and therefore necessarily centre decolonizing, anti-oppressive approaches to research (Potts & Brown, 2015; Wilson, 2001). Colonialism has also manufactured ideal conditions for disproportionate rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual (2SLGBTQQIA+) people in Canada (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). Incorporating Indigenous feminism is also necessary to include within my approach given the population of Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people who are the focus of this research.

Indigenous feminism is a theoretical body of multiple feminisms which consider women’s diverse experiences related to culture, geography, politics, race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability, class, age, and religion (Bourgeois, 2017; Hankivsky & Cormier, 2009). A distinct feature of Indigenous feminism is an acknowledgement that Indigenous peoples are explicitly impacted by colonialism and the exploitation and theft of Indigenous lands, and by white supremacy and heteropatriarchy that permeate all aspects of Indigenous life in ways that particularly harm Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA + people (Green, 2017; Simpson, 2017). Indigenous feminism resists these forms of domination and actively dismantles all systems of oppression that inflict violence on all (including men, boys, and all our relations) (Anderson, 2020). Indigenous feminism recognizes the unique responsibilities of people within a collective, emphasizing reciprocity amongst relations, where each body can contribute their gifts, and where balance within relationships and mind, body, spirit, and heart is the ultimate goal (Arvin et al., 2013).

As noted, the project within which this Anishinaabe research paradigm is being used takes a narrative approach to learn from the stories of Algonquin women and gender-diverse people from the Mattawa and North Bay area in Ontario, Canada. To centre Indigenous feminism and an anti-colonial/decolonizing, anti-oppressive approach, I have chosen to include participants’ stories within this article to demonstrate how they contributed to the development of my Anishinaabe research paradigm. For example, throughout conversations with participants, many offered teachings about relational accountability, Algonquin culture, storytelling, and Anishinaabe worldview. Their stories informed my understanding of research and influenced my (inter)actions within the research process. As such, the development of this paradigm was not a linear process; it shape-shifted as I developed relationships with participants. I include their stories because their teachings are a fundamental aspect of my coming to know.

Ontology and Epistemology

For Anishinaabeg, knowledge is created through relationships with all that surround us. I am inseparable from every human and more-than-human entity that exists within the complex web of Creation (Wilson, 2001). Anishinaabe ontology and epistemology are therefore interconnected: we are all our relations and our relations produce knowledge of the multiple realities that exist (Wilson, 2008). All of Creation is connected and reliant upon one another, though humans are arguably the most dependent species having been created after all else according to Anishinaabe Creation stories. And because knowledge is co-constructed with our cosmos, knowledge belongs to everyone and everything (Wilson & Hughes, 2019). Further, reality – or truth – is not one tangible object to be discovered by a trained researcher (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003). Rather, coming to know involves the process of forming, adjusting, distancing, and understanding connections that weave together to form complex, numerous realities (Pidgeon, 2019). The purpose of working through the meaning making process is to better understand ourselves and our relations in order to engage in action to benefit all of Creation (Allen et al., 2021; Rigney, 1999; Sherman, 2008).

Anishinaabe epistemology involves ways of knowing that incorporate more than intellectual understanding and importantly includes sensory, emotional, experiential, and spiritual components as well (Simpson & Manitowabi, 2013). Anishinaabe worldviews and knowledges come from multiple sources in a non-linear understanding of time and space; just as our realities constantly change, so do our understandings as we create new stories with the land and our relatives (Borrows, 2018; Richotte, 2013; Starblanket & Stark, 2018). We come to know through sacred and personal stories, songs, language, interactions with land and more-than-human bodies, spirit and ceremony, and our own experiences and identities as individuals among a diverse collective of Anishinaabeg (Ladner, 2018; Pitawanakwat, 2013; Windchief & Cummins, 2022).

Methodology

Indigenous researchers have taken up various methodologies when utilizing Indigenous research paradigms including community-based participatory approaches and transformative, decolonizing research methodologies that incorporate Indigenous knowledges and apply mixed methods (Chilisa, 2020). I chose to centre storytelling in my methodology because it emphasizes Anishinaabeg values of relationality and prioritizes our ways of knowing and being in the research process (Penak, 2019). Storytelling is Anishinaabe worldview in action. Therefore, Anishinaabe storytelling is decolonizing and supports cultural knowledge to safeguard Anishinaabeg continuity (Cidro, 2012; Kovach, 2009).

Storytelling is integral to Anishinaabe lifeways. Our realities are collections of stories and our perceptions of these realities are influenced by story. The stories we hear and the stories we tell others (and ourselves) shape who we are and how we see the world (King, 2003). Stories in various shapes and forms are the predominant ways in which Anishinaabe knowledges have been transmitted throughout generations since time immemorial (Loppie, 2007). Some stories are personal and public, whereas others are sacred, only meant to be told during certain times of the year by select members of community such as designated Elders or Knowledge Keepers (Pitawanakwat, 2013). Our stories carry Anishinaabe origins, culture, knowledges, teachings, values, laws, tradition, and histories and influence how we understand our past, present, and possibilities for the future (Thomas, 2015).

Storytelling is medicine; it is an empowering process of truth-telling, relationship-building, and healing that can be taken up by Anishinaabekwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people to reclaim their histories and modern lifeways (King, 2003; Thomas, 2015). Stories are also fundamentally relational – all members of the research relationship are involved in collaboratively creating and sharing knowledge as stories are communicated (Kovach, 2010). Building trust, respect, and relationship in the research relationship is key to storytelling and being able to listen to stories with heart, body, mind, and spirit (Archibald, 2008). Once these qualities are established, storytelling becomes a non-hierarchical way to discuss intergenerational trauma and stories of resilience (de Leeuw et al., 2017). Therefore, in this project, I requested stories from Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people from the Mattawa and North Bay geographical area in order to reclaim our collective narratives to better reflect our diverse realities.

Story as Method

I engaged in storytelling using the conversational method with 13 self-identified, status and non-status Algonquin participants (11 women, 1 Two-Spirit individual, and 1 non-binary individual) who are 18 years of age or older. Participants’ ages ranged from 22-65 years, with an average of 43 years of age. 10 participants were members of Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) with 2 from Antoine, 7 from Mattawa/North Bay², and 1 from Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation. Three participants were unaffiliated with the AOO: one participant identified as Métis with mixed French and Algonquin ancestry; one participant was affiliated with Kichisipirini Algonquin First Nation³; and one participant purposely avoided registration under the Indian Act and membership within AOO altogether. Four participants identified as status Indians. Four participants lived within Algonquin territory outlined in the Algonquin comprehensive land claim (CLC) and all participants lived off-reserve. All other demographic data is excluded here to protect the privacy of participants.

Originally, the inclusion criteria identified only registered members of the Mattawa/North Bay collective as eligible for participation, but as Algonquins from diverse groups came forward, I decided to open the inclusion criteria to all Algonquin participants who identified the geographical area of Mattawa and North Bay as their ancestral community and a place of cultural, historical, spiritual, and political importance to their Algonquin identities.⁴

Over the course of 37 one-on-one telephone or Microsoft Teams conversations, participants and I collaboratively explored our experiences of settler colonialism and resistance within the Mattawa and North Bay area. All conversations took place remotely due to contact restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally, conversations would have taken place in-person and the project would have concluded with a feast and knowledge sharing event with interested participants. However, in-person activity within a research context was not permitted by my university for the majority of this project’s timeline, so my preferred methods were not possible. While in-person sharing is better aligned with my relational research approach, remote communication did not interfere with relationship building and ultimately allowed this research to proceed.

The conversational method, as articulated by Kovach (2010), is deeply relational, flexible, and reciprocal between storytellers and listeners. It involves active participation from both researcher and participant and is therefore a dialogic method of shaping knowledge about particular phenomena. While I participated in conversations and influenced their directions using an open-structured discussion guide, participants retained control of the subjects of discussion, as well as the length and number of conversations that we had together.

Anishinaabe stories can be told in many ways including through oral tradition, art work, beadwork, poetry, song, prayer, dreams, dance, and other mediums – contingent upon the purpose of the story and the skills and preferences of the teller (Kovach, 2009). In fact, participants in this project note that stories are told in every practice and expression of Algonquin life. For example, stories are told through beading, oral teachings/histories, sewing moccasins and making regalia, berry-picking, speaking the Algonquin language, drumming, collecting water, making tikinagans, dreaming, singing, skinning rabbits, and being in ceremony. Many also recognize land as the greatest storyteller and Knowledge Keeper. Further, stories can be memories of past relationships (with land, humans, and more-than-humans) and provide guidance for our future relations (Hampton, 1995).

To acknowledge the importance of the diverse ways in which stories are told, in addition to telephone/Microsoft Teams conversations, I also invited participants to share their stories through other mediums of their choosing. While the majority of participants selected conversation only, one participant sent me photos of her regalia and another participant sent along a previously written essay related to their Indigeneity. The fact that only a few participants chose to tell stories through methods outside of conversation is likely related to the COVID-19 pandemic that prevented in-person sharing.

Data Analysis

Within an Anishinaabe research paradigm, I see the results of my research as a complex set of relationships that are dependent upon one another (Wilson, 2001). Data analysis is a collaborative, subjective process of meaning-making, where intricate, multiple realities are articulated by examining experience in relation; its purpose is not to discover a singular, independent truth that can be generalized to all, but rather to illustrate knowledges formed within specific socio-cultural, historical, political, social, and geographical settings (Bishop, 1999). The results must also be analyzed by engaging with our full selves including our mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual attributes, while acknowledging that we are not separate from the rest of the cosmos (Archibald et al., 2019). If the results of analysis are credible (i.e. are valid and reliable), they should reflect the experiences and understandings of participants as they come to be known through relationship (Wilson, 2008).

Deciding on a particular strategy of data analysis was difficult. Many qualitative methods that researchers use to analyze narratives or stories, such as narrative analysis, grounded theory, or thematic analysis, did not fit well into my research design and within my Anishinaabe research paradigm. For example, thematic analysis has been critiqued in the way it tends to fragment or oversimplify data, while Indigenous epistemologies and methodologies emphasize coming to know through wholistic processes (Kovach, 2009). Distilling participants’ stories into theory or a compartmentalized conclusion through qualitative analysis also seemed to contradict the purpose of the project, which was to illustrate the diverse, specific, lived experiences of Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people from Mattawa and North Bay (Chiblow, 2021). Instead, I chose to reconcile the initial stages of thematic analysis with storytelling as a process of analysis itself using a ribbon skirt sewing framework.

Preparing for Analysis

The process of meaning-making began during conversations with participants. Before each conversation, I took time to quiet myself and spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and physically prepare to listen and engage. To do so, I offered tobacco to the land and to participants and smudged with Sage to help engage with participants with all my senses in a good way. Smudging also connects me to spirit and my ancestors who helped guide me through this research. Several Indigenous researchers emphasize the importance of preparing yourself properly to build relationships and come to know within the research process (Archibald, 2008; Chiblow, 2021; Lambert, 2014). One participant, Elder Karen Labreche⁵, also emphasized the importance of quieting oneself when coming to know, which assured me that my research practice was rooted in ceremony. She notes, “I feel the more time we spend meditating and connecting with our inner selves, the stronger we become as a person. I think it’s so important that people spend time meditating with themselves – going inside and looking inside. And taking some time on Mother Earth and connecting with that sacred medicine that she offers us, because everything that we look at is a living teacher for us.”

Another important aspect of preparing myself for research and data analysis specifically involved reflexivity, or the process of critically examining findings in relation to ourselves as co-participants in the meaning-making process (McGuire-Adams, 2020). Reflexivity involves ongoing self-evaluation in order to assess your intentions, challenges, shortcomings, strengths, positionality, and power within research (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003; Wilson, 2008). By engaging in reflexive practice, I show up in the research process with genuine intentions, respect for participants, and a shared a responsibility of truth-telling. This critical personal accountability is also a form of relational accountability and is fundamental to axiology within my Anishinaabe research paradigm (Davidson, 2019; Wilson, 2001). My reflexive practice involved journaling throughout the course of the project, and writing and reflecting on my notes from conversations, my analyses, and occurrences in my personal life. Journaling helped me further identify myself in the research as a co-contributor and storyteller.

Coding

The next cycle of analysis was oriented on the transcription process. Each conversation with participants was audio-recorded and transcribed with permission, which was obtained through verbal consent. During transcription, I took notes and reflected on the stories shared and their possible meanings. During first conversations with participants, I offered to share their transcripts with them so they could review for accuracy and remove any of the stories they would not like to include in the project. After all conversations were transcribed, I read through them all again and completed high-level coding and categorizing using Nvivo 12 (Clarke & Braun, 2017; QSR International, 2019; Spencer et al., 2014). I also reflected on the photos and essay that were sent to me by participants. These materials were discussed during conversations and this data was coded as well.

After reviewing the initial coding, it was clear which topics were the most important and influential in the lives of participants. To honour their contributions to the project, I used these topics to write stories to reflect the experiences of Algonquin ikwewag and gender-diverse people that were shared with me in this project. Prior to writing stories, I presented the prominent topics to participants and requested feedback to uphold their respective priorities and intentions.

In this research, stories are not meant to be replicated accounts of conversations with participants; rather, they are meant to convey the lessons and meanings communicated by participants (Onuora, 2013). Re-storying the voices of participants was a method of constant reflection. My process of storytelling involved continuously moving to, from, in between, and beyond the literature that informed my project; my personal, experiential and cultural knowledges; the stories of participants; the guiding influence of spirit; and our connections with land and more-than-human relations. When I felt stuck, I put tobacco down and asked Creator for guidance. I sat quietly and considered how to critically make meaning out of these many shifting components. Then I remembered my ribbon skirts.

A Ribbon Skirt Framework of Analysis

At the beginning of the project, I knew I wanted to create a ribbon skirt as one of my contributions to storytelling as a co-participant. I learned how to make ribbon skirts from Elder Deborah St. Amant while I was designing my research proposal for this project. Ribbon skirts are projects of creativity, beauty, connection, strength, and resilience. I learned how to make ribbon skirts in the company of other Indigenous women, including Lindsay Morcom, who taught me more about Anishinaabe culture, myself as an Algonquin Anishinaabekwe, and the skills I bring to my communities. In this project, making a ribbon skirt resembles the process of stitching stories together from Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people to form an intricate, reimagined cluster of collective stories. My practice of storytelling and meaning-making through a ribbon skirt framework was inspired by the Herringbone Stitch Model of analysis articulated by Andrews (2021), a story rug research framework that recognizes story as a process similar to rug weaving (Tachine, 2018), and a butterfly framework of coding methodology articulated by Chiblow (2021).

To make my ribbon skirt (Figure 1), I used 14 distinct ribbons to represent me and the 13 participants who participated in the project. I chose a base fabric and ribbon colours that reminded me of the land and our more-than-human relatives in the Mattawa and North Bay area (informed by my own experience and the stories of participants). The ribbons circle all the way around the skirt, which represents the cyclical nature of storytelling and the importance of the circle to Anishinaabeg (e.g. Moon, sun, and planetary cycles; seasons; communities as circles; and the circle of life) (Bell, 2013).

Figure 1.

Framing Analysis - A Ribbon Skirt for the Place Where the Waters Meet.

The stitches that hold the ribbon skirt together represent the interpretive storytelling process that involved critically reflecting on stories shared by participants and sharing back what I learned with participants to hear their thoughts. I also shared de-identified findings with Oshkaabewisag, received feedback, and incorporated their thoughts into the final research products. My interpretive process was further informed by the knowledges and experiences that I entered the project with, including my Anishinaabe worldview, my position and experience as a mixed-ancestry Algonquin Anishinaabekwe researcher, as well as the academic literature that structured my Indigenous feminist, decolonizing, and anti-oppressive approach to research. This practice, as well as the physical practice of ribbon skirt making, demonstrates the inseverable connection of the researcher to the research, as I have been involved in every stage of the meaning-making process along with participants. With these strategies and resources, I constructed stories that illuminated the voices of participants.

Finally, ribbon skirts are also meant to be worn, which is a reminder of the importance of strengths-based, action-oriented research and using the research findings for the benefit of community (Ballengee Morris & Eldridge, 2020). In this project, storytelling is meant to elucidate the concerns, strengths, and gifts of participants, carry their experiences and knowledges to other Algonquin people, and imagine futures that assure the safety, wellness, and survivance of Algonquin ikwewag, gender-diverse people, and all our relations. Ultimately, the skirt demonstrates the complexity and strength of Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people, which is a fundamental principle of an Anishinaabe research paradigm.

Axiology

Ethical standards for research with Indigenous peoples have changed drastically over the last 30 years. Research in Indigenous communities was led primarily by non-Indigenous researchers in Western academic institutions and was predominantly extractive, paternalistic, and harmful to Indigenous peoples (Smith, 1999). More recently, ethical frameworks have been developed by Indigenous researchers and non-Indigenous allies for research within Indigenous communities including the Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) framework and the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2): Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans – Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, 2018; First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2014). Indigenous nations have also developed their own ethical protocols and processes for research that are specific to their communities and cultures.

I used OCAP and the TCPS2 to inform my axiology; however, I centered Anishinaabe ethical approaches in attempt to further decolonize and Indigenize the research process. And importantly, while OCAP and the TCPS2 have improved ethical research conduct within many Indigenous communities, these frameworks left some ethical considerations in this research unaddressed. For instance, the principles of OCAP emphasize the importance of Indigenous communities and leadership owning, controlling, possessing, and being able to access the research data without undue barriers imposed by the researcher (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2014). However, the geographical area of Mattawa and North Bay is home to a diverse population of Algonquin people. Living in the area, there are Algonquin collectives involved in the Algonquin CLC, as well as Métis groups. There are also individual Algonquins who are enrolled with federally recognized First Nations and those who are not registered with either a First Nation or Algonquins of Ontario. As a result, identifying a formal Algonquin organization to assume OCAP responsibilities in this project was not feasible.

Further, in the case of Algonquin collectives in area of Mattawa and North Bay (i.e. Antoine and Mattawa/North Bay), Algonquin Negotiation Representatives (ANRs) are elected as formal leaders in CLC negotiations. ANRs from both communities are men who represent diverse populations that are internally fractured in the context of colonialism and the Algonquin CLC. ANRs are also not permitted to be involved in research related to the CLC without explicit permission from the claim’s chief negotiator who is a non-Indigenous lawyer (Lawrence, 2012). Considering these factors, it did not seem ethical to obtain their permission within this project in order to tell stories with fellow Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people from the Mattawa and North Bay area.

Instead, I utilized principles from OCAP and the TCPS2, while prioritizing Anishinaabe axiology involving relational accountability informed by Mino-Bimaadiziwin, the Seven Grandfather Teachings, “The Four Rs”, and Anishinaabe jiimaan (canoe) teachings to guide my research. To address the issue of identifying leadership, I invited Anishinaabekwewag to join an Oshkaabewisag Committee to help guide the conduct of the project. By prioritizing Anishinaabe ways of knowing and living, I am Indigenizing the research process and affirming the autonomy of Anishinaabe knowledges and practices.

Relational Accountability

Relational accountability is a central principle of my axiology within my Anishinaabe research paradigm and within Indigenous research paradigms broadly (McGuire-Adams, 2020). Relational accountability involves fulfilling one’s roles and responsibilities within their research relationships and kinships with the rest of the world (Wilson, 2001). It involves a strong commitment to our relations – human and more-than-human relatives, communities, nations, environments, and our greater cosmos (Wilson & Hughes, 2019). Relational accountability is an acknowledgement through our attitudes and actions that we respect and honour our complex connections upon which we depend. As a result, researchers are invested in the integrity of their methodologies and the relationships they form within the research process. We are invested because our actions through research are ceremony that can ultimately shape who we are and the world around us (Wilson, 2008).

Mino-Bimaadiziwin

Relational accountability is harmonious with Mino-Bimaadiziwin (the Good Life), which is an expression of the values and worldviews of Anishinaabeg. Mino-Bimaadiziwin is a lifeway communicated by Creator wherein Anishinaabeg become their fullest selves in ways that support the wellness and posterity of Anishinaabeg and their communities (Sherman, 2008; Sioui & Mclemen, 2014). It is a recognition of self as spirit, mind, body, and heart, and of our responsibilities to live with respect and reciprocity to honour our relationships with every being around us (Bell, 2013; Debassige, 2010).

Mino-Bimaadiziwin is grounded in Original Instructions for Anishinaabeg, including the Seven Grandfather Teachings which encompass wisdom, love, respect, bravery, honesty, humility, and truth (Benton-Banai, 2010). Wisdom involves respecting and valuing the knowledge of all living things and coming to know through wholistic, spiritual, relational, and experiential processes. Love is caring for the balance and well-being of all of Creation. Respect means acknowledging the autonomy and simultaneous connection of all beings and relating to one another according to principles of reciprocity. Bravery involves standing up for the self-determination, safety, dignity, and quality of life for oneself, the land, and our more-than-human relatives. Honesty is acting and communicating with integrity in all relationships. Humility is recognizing ourselves as sacred and as part of our greater cosmos in balance with all living beings. Truth involves respecting the integrity of ourselves and relations, and acting in ways that show kindness and strength of character to benefit all (Bell, 2013).

These instructional gifts can be taken up and applied in all of our relations, including within the research process. In this project, I embody Mino-Bimaadiziwin to guide the ethical conduct of my methodologies to ensure relational accountability throughout the research journey. For example, the ways in which Mino-Bimaadiziwin shows up in my research include within the research relationships I form with participants, the respect I have for participants’ stories as I find ways to honour their contributions in this work, and my commitment to honesty and truth through storytelling.

The Four Rs

My axiology is also informed by “The Four Rs,” which is group of principles that have been practiced and adapted by numerous Indigenous educators and researchers across cultures. There are different variations to this ethical approach. For example, Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) use respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility to critically consider the educational experiences of Indigenous students in Canada and the United States. Archibald (2008) engages in “storywork” research and centres respect, responsibility, reciprocity, reverence, holism, interrelatedness and synergy in her axiology. Indigenous educators, researchers, and storytellers have utilized these approaches and made adaptations of their own to meet their needs and suit their cultural backgrounds (Archibald, Nicol, & Tovanovich, 2019; Candace & Pauline, 2019; Davidson, 2019).

The ‘Rs’ that I have chosen to use in this research are respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility, and reverence. This project embodies respect for Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people and their diverse ways of living and knowing. It acknowledges the variety of ways in which stories are told and values the knowledges and experiences of participants through collaborative storytelling.

This project is relevant to participants and the Mattawa and North Bay Algonquin community because it focuses on the concerns of participants and centres their voices. As a community member and Algonquin woman myself, I noticed a need for storytelling and connection amongst Algonquin ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people and designed the project around this identified need. I also connected back with participants to confirm the accuracy of their transcripts and whether their stories were being honoured in the results.

The research was also grounded in reciprocity because, rather than relying on extractive methodologies that expropriate knowledges, I incorporated storytelling through the conversational method, which involves a two-way exchange of experience, emotion, spirit, and knowledge (Kovach, 2010; Oakley, 1981). Just as participants shared their stories with me, I also shared my stories with them, and both participants and I benefited from the storytelling process. For example, some participants in the project described the benefit of storytelling and its power to encourage self-expression, promote healing, support wholistic wellness, teach roles and responsibilities, transfer knowledge, reinforce identities, and foster belonging. Importantly, participants felt that sharing their personal experiences in this project was also a way to help other Algonquin ikwewag and gender-diverse people. I also offered each participant tobacco for their contributions and acknowledged all names of participants who opted to have their identities represented in published stories.

As a researcher and community member, I have a responsibility to uphold good relations throughout the research process. As a co-storyteller, I have power within the narratives I create and a responsibility to re-tell participants’ stories authentically and for the benefit of community. Many stories that are told about Algonquin people (and ikwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people in particular) are damaging. Stories often focus on pain and trauma, thereby positioning Algonquin ikwewag and gender-diverse people as vulnerable victims (Tuck & Yang, 2014). These damage-centered stories further contribute to colonial oppression and violence (Tuck, 2009). Instead, my storytelling approach acknowledges the diverse concerns and experiences of participants while highlighting their collective strengths, gifts, and resilience.

Finally, reverence is an important component of my axiology because it recognizes the importance of spirituality when preparing the heart, body, and mind for research as ceremony (Archibald, 2008; Wilson, 2008). An important part of the research process was spiritually preparing myself. For example, I searched for guidance throughout the research process and put tobacco down and asked Creator for help when needed. When I was feeling overwhelmed by the responsibilities of research, I smudged to clear my mind and calm my thoughts and heart. I prayed for the strength needed to write impactful stories.

Anishinaabe Jiimaan (Canoe) Teachings

Jiimaan is a living entity who is connected to both water, sky, land, humans, and more-than-human beings. As a member of the Loon Clan, I relate to jiimaan’s location floating on water and existing in multiple zones of Creation simultaneously. When I heard Algonquin ikwewag and research participant Jenn Cole⁶ share about jiimaan within this project, I was drawn into the connections between relationship with jiimaan and the research relationship in general. Jenn was taught about jiiman by Algonquin Anishinaabe, Marcel Labelle/Mahigan from Mattawa. As Jenn shares, our Creation stories and the stories of our human bodies are held in the body of jiimaan. She notes:

“The most I’ve learned about consent in my adult life, I’m learning from working with jiimaan… How do I ask that canoe to work with her, and arrive with gifts, and approach her in a good way? How do I do that? There’s so much power in those teachings. Even offering tobacco for what we might harvest from the land… you don’t take without asking. And we don’t take without consent. And we learn how to ask for consent in such subtle, nuanced, intelligent – deeply intelligent – intuitive ways. And when we’re working with… the intelligences of many beings who are not human beings, and as I practice that, I become stronger about my own boundaries… When I touch that canoe, I ask every time. And practicing that, I think, reminds us that we are sacred and that other beings are sacred, and then it just creates this whole other paradigm for engaging in relationships…”

These teachings inform how to relate to one another in research. Teachings involving relationships with jiimaan beings show Algonquin researchers the importance of building relationships with those whom we interact with and asking for permission and receiving consent before taking from those relations. Relationship with jiimaan also shows us the importance of offering gifts when we make requests and identifies the life and spirit of jiimaan as a living relation. These teachings are an embodiment of Anishinaabe Mino-Bimaadiziwin and our Original Instructions, and they demonstrate how the Four Rs can be found within Anishinaabe worldviews, values, and practices.

Several Indigenous researchers have likewise been instructed by jiimaan on how to interact with our relations in research. For instance, Freeman and Katwyk (2020) discuss their interactions with jiimaan as providing guidance and direction in the research process. Pidgeon (2019) recognizes that, “relationships between the paddlers, canoe, and environment are much like the living processes of respect that occur in research relationships,” and these principles can be taken up through protocols within Indigenous community research. Cole (2002) shows how researchers are similar to canoe paddlers who must be ready for all weather conditions along the research journey. Researchers must also be respectful of our environments – ethical approaches are more than signed consent forms; they contain sets of responsibilities and relationships with communities that must be navigated properly.

Conclusion

Taking up Indigenous research paradigms in Indigenous-led research is an important strategy to decolonize and Indigenize the academic spaces where knowledge is shared (McGuire-Adams, 2020). The Anishinaabe research paradigm that structures my storytelling journey with Algonquin Anishinaabekwewag and 2SLGBTQQIA + people from Mattawa and North Bay contains decolonizing and Indigenous feminist theories that are fundamental to anti-oppressive research. I stitch together multiple knowledge systems, including both Western and Anishinaabe ways of knowing and living, using a ribbon skirt framework of data analysis that illustrates knowledges from participants’ stories and my whole self as guided by spirit. The ethical approach of my Anishinaabe research paradigm upholds relational accountability rooted in Anishinaabe worldviews as identified clearly in jiimaan teachings.

By articulating a distinctly Anishinaabe research paradigm, I join other Anishinaabe researchers who are making more room for Anishinaabe worldviews that have historically been marginalized in the academy. Living our worldviews in research supports other Anishinaabeg reclaiming their ways of knowing and living through research and in everyday life.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Thank you to all of the Algonquin ikwewag (women) and 2SLGBTQQIA + people who shared their stories in this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kaitlyn Patterson

Notes

References

Absolon

K. E.

(2011). Kaandossiwin: How we come to know. Fernwood Publishing.

Allen

Held

Milne-Price

McCormick

Feng

Inouye

Schure

Castille

Howe

R. B.

Pitts

Keene

Belone

Wallerstein

(2021). Community sharing: Contextualizing western research notions of contamination within an Indigenous research paradigm. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1–2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12552

Anderson

(2020). On seasons of an Indigenous feminism, kinship, and the program of home management. Hypatia, 35(1), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2019.10

Andrews

(2021). Qualitative analysis at the interface of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems: the Herringbone stitch model. Qualitative Research, 21(6), 939–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120965365

Archibald

(2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC Press.

Archibald

Lee-Morgan

J. B. J.

De Santolo

(2019). Introduction. In Archibald

Lee-Morgan

J. B. J.

Santolo

J. D.

(Eds.), Decolonizing research: Indigenous storywork as methodology (pp. 1–15). Zed Books Ltd.

Arvin

Tuck

Morrill

(2013). Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy. Feminist Formations, 25(1), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2013.0006

Ballengee Morris

Eldridge

L. A.

(2020). The heart of Indigenous research methodologies. Studies in Art Education, 61(3), 282–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2020.1778607

Bell

(2013). Anishinaabe bimaadiziwin: Living spiritually with respect, relationship, reciprocity, and responsibility. In Kulnieks

Longboat

R. D.

Young

(Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 89–107). Sense Publishers.

10.

Bell

(2018). Anishinaabe research theory and methodology as informed by Nanaboozhoo, the bundle bag, and the medicine wheel. In McGregor

Restoule

J.-P.

Johnston

(Eds.), Indigenous research: Theories, practices, and relationships (pp. 175–186). Canadian Scholars.

11.

Benton-Banai

(2010). The mishomis book: The voice of the Ojibway. University of Minnesota Press.

12.

Bishop

(1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A maori approach to creating knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236674

13.

Bishop

(1999). Collaborative storytelling: Meeting Indigenous peoples’ desires for self-determination in research [Paper presentation]. World Indigenous People’s Conference. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467396.pdf

14.

Borrows

(2018). Earth-bound: Indigenous resurgence and environmental reconciliation. In Asch

Borrows

Tully

(Eds.), Resurgence and reconciliation: Indigenous-settler relations and earth teachings (pp. 49–81). The University of Toronto Press.

15.

Borrows

L. K.

(2013). On the road home: Stories and reflections from Neyaashiinigiming. In Doerfler

Sinclair

N. J.

Stark

H. K.

(Eds.), Centering Anishinaabeg studies: Understanding the world through stories (pp. 397–407). University of Manitoba Press.

16.

Bourgeois

(2017). Perpetual state of violence: An Indigenous feminist anti-oppression inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. In Green

(Ed.), Making space for Indigenous feminism (2nd ed., pp. 253–273). Fernwood Publishing.

17.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council . (2018). Tri-council policy statement 2: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Panel on Research Ethics. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf

18.

Candace

Pauline

(2019). Reimagining the four Rs of Indigenous education for literary studies: Learning from and with Indigenous stories in the classroom. Studies in American Indian Literatures, 32(3–4), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1353/ail.2020.0016

19.

Castleden

Morgan

V. S.

Lamb

(2012). “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 55(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x

20.

Chiblow

(2021). An Anishinaabe research methodology that utilizes Indigenous intelligence as a conceptual framework exploring humanity’s relationship to N’bi (water). International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211058017

21.

Chilisa

(2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications.

22.

Chilisa

(2020). Indigenous research methodologies (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

23.

Cidro

(2012). Nanabush storytelling as data analysis and knowledge transmissions. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 32(2), 159–169.

24.

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

25.

Cole

(2002). Aboriginalizing methodology: Considering the canoe. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390210145516

26.

Davidson

S. F.

(2019). Following the song of k’aad ‘aww: Using Indigenous storywork principles to guide ethical practices in research. In Archibald

Lee-Morgan

J. B. J.

De Santolo

(Eds.), Decolonizing research: Indigenous storywork as methodology (pp. 23–39). Zedd Books Ltd.

27.

Debassige

(2010). Re-Conceptualizing Anishinaabe mino-bimaadiziwin (the good life) as research methodology: A spirit-centered way in Anishinaabe research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 33(1), 11–28.

28.

de Leeuw

Parkes

M. W.

Morgan

V. S.

Christensen

Lindsay

Mitchell-Foster

Jozkow

J. R.

(2017). Going unscripted: A call to critically engage storytelling methods and methodologies in geography and the medical-health sciences. The Canadian Geographer, 61(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12337

29.

First Nations Information Governance Centre . (2014). Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP): The path to First Nations information governance. First Nations Information Governance Centre. https://achh.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/OCAP_FNIGC.pdf

30.

Fraser

O’Neill

(2021). I am not represented here: Cultural frameworks and Indigenous methodology primer for postsecondary settings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025444

31.

Freeman

B. M.

Katwyk

T. V.

(2020). Navigating the waters: Understanding allied relationships through a Tekéni Teyohà:ke Kahswénhtake two row research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 9(1), 60–76. https://ucalgary.ca/journals/jisd

32.

Gehl

(2014). The truth that wampum tells: My debwewin on the Algonquin land claims process. Fernwood Publishing.

33.

Gehl

(2017). Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the human spirit. University of Regina Press.

34.

Gone

J. P.

(2019). Considering Indigenous research methodologies: Critical reflections by an Indigenous knower. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418787545

35.

Gone

J. P.

(2022). Indigenous research methodologies: X-Marks in the age of community accountability and protection. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(2), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211057286

36.

Green

(2017). Taking more account of Indigenous feminism: An introduction. In Green

(Ed.), Making space for Indigenous feminism (2nd ed., pp. 1–20). Fernwood Publishing.

37.

Hampton

(1995). Memory comes before knowledge: Research may improve if researchers remember their motives. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 21, 46–54. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/CJNE/article/view/195782

38.

Hankivsky

Cormier

(2009). Intersectionality: Moving women’s health research and policy forward. Women’s Health Research Network. https://cewh.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2009_IntersectionaliyMovingwomenshealthresearchandpolicyforward.pdf

39.

Hart

(2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an Indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1), 1–16.

40.

Hart

Straka

Rowe

(2017). Working across contexts: Practical considerations of doing indigenist/anti-colonial research. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416659084

41.

Held

M. B. E.

(2019). Decolonizing research paradigms in the context of settler colonialism: An unsettling, mutual, and collaborative effort. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574

42.

Juutilainen

S. A.

Jeffrey

Stewart

(2020). Methodology matters: Designing a pilot study guided by Indigenous epistemologies. Human Biology, 91(3), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.13110/humanbiology.91.3.06

43.

King

(2003). The truth about stories: A Native narrative. House of Anansi Press Inc.

44.

Kirkness

V. J.

Barnhardt

(1991). First Nations and higher education: The four R’s--respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. The Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–15.

45.

Kovach

(2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.

46.

Kovach

(2010). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40–48.

47.

Kovach

(2015). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In Strega

Brown

(Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed., pp. 43–64). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

48.

Ladner

(2018). Proceed with caution: Reflections on resurgence and reconciliation. In Asch

Borrows

Tully

(Eds.), Resurgence and reconciliation: Indigenous-settler relations and Earth teachings (pp. 245–264). University of Toronto Press.

49.

Lambert

L. A.

(2014). Research for Indigenous survival: Indigenous research methodologies in the behavioral sciences. Salish Kootenai College Press.

50.

Lawrence

(2012). Fractured homeland: Federal recognition and Algonquin identity in Ontario. UBC Press.

51.

Loppie

(2007). Learning from the grandmothers: Incorporating Indigenous principles into qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(2), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306297905

52.

Martin

Mirraboopa

(2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14443050309387838

53.

McGregor

(2018). Toward an Anishinaabe research paradigm: Theory and practice. In McGregor

Restoule

J.-P.

Johnston

(Eds.), Indigenous research: Theories, practices, and relationships (pp. 243–256). Canadian Scholars.

54.

McGuire-Adams

T. D.

(2020). Paradigm shifting: Centering Indigenous research methodologies, an Anishinaabe perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 12(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1662474

55.

National inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls . (2019). Reclaiming power and place: Executive summary of the final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. The National Inquiry. https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Executive_Summary.pdf

56.

Oakley

(1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In Roberts

(Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). Routledge & Kegan Paul.

57.

Onuora

A. N.

(2013). HERstory is OURstory: An Afro-Indigenous response to the call for “truth” in narrative representation. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13(5), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613496391

58.

Penak

(2019). The trickiness of storytelling with Indigenous social workers: Implications for research in the era of reconciliation. In Wilson

Breen

A. V.

Dupr

(Eds.), Research & reconciliation: Unsettling ways of knowing through Indigenous relationships (pp. 139–151). Canadian Scholars.

59.

Pidgeon

(2019). Moving between theory and practice within an Indigenous research paradigm. Qualitative Research, 19(4), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118781380

60.

Pitawanakwat

(2013). Anishinaabeg studies: Creative, critical, ethical, and reflexive. In Doerfler

Sinclair

N. J.

Stark

H. K.

(Eds.), Centering Anishinaabeg studies: Understanding the world through stories (pp. 363–377). Michigan State University Press.

61.

Potts

K. L.

Brown

(2015). Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In Strega

Brown

(Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed., pp. 17–42). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

62.

QSR International . (2019). NVivo 12. QSR International. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/home

63.

Richotte

Jr. (2013). Telling all of our stories: Reorienting the legal and political events of the Anishinaabeg. In Doerfler

Sinclair

N. J.

Stark

H. K.

(Eds.), Centering Anishinaabeg studies: Understanding the world through stories (pp. 379–396). University of Manitoba Press.

64.

Rigney

L.-I.

(1999). Internationalization of an indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wicazo Sa Review, 14(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1409555

65.

Sherman

(2008). Dishonour of the crown: The Ontario resource regime in the valley of the Kiji Sibi. Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

66.

Simpson

L. B.

(2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. University of Minnesota Press.

67.

Simpson

L. B.

Manitowabi

(2013). Theorizing resurgence from within Nishnaabeg thought. In Doerfler

Sinclair

N. J.

Stark

H. K.

(Eds.), Centering Anishinaabeg studies: Understanding the world through stories (pp. 279–294). University of Manitoba Press.

68.

Sinclair

N. J.

(2013). K’zaugin: Storying ourselves into life. In Doerfler

Sinclair

N. J.

Stark

H. K.

(Eds.), Centering Anishinaabeg studies: Understanding the world through stories (pp. 81–102). University of Manitoba Press.

69.

Sioui

Mclemen

(2014). Asserting mino pimàdiziwin on unceded Algonquin territory: Experiences of a Canadian “non-status” First Nation in re-establishing its traditional land ethic. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 10(4), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718011401000404

70.

Smith

L. T.

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

71.

Spencer

Ritchie

Ormston

O’Connor

Bernard

(2014). Analysis: Principles and processes. In Ritchie

Lewis

McNaughton Nicholls

Ormston

(Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students & researchers (pp. 269–294). Sage Publications Ltd.

72.

Starblanket

Stark

H. K.

(2018). Towards a relational paradigm - Four points for consideration: Knowledge, gender, land, and modernity. In Asch

Borrows

Tully

(Eds.), Resurgence and reconciliation: Indigenous-settler relations and earth teachings (pp. 175–208). The University of Toronto Press.

73.

Strega

Brown

(2015). Introduction: From resistance to resurgence. In Strega

Brown

(Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

74.

Tachine

A. R.

(2018). Story rug: Weaving stories into research. In Minthorn

R. S.

Shotton

H. J.

(Eds.), Reclaiming Indigenous research in higher education (pp. 64–75). Rutgers University Press.

75.

Thomas

R. A.

(2015). Honouring the oral traditions of the Ta’t Mustimuxw (ancestors) through Storytelling. In Strega

Brown

(Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 177–198). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

76.

Tuck

(2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15

77.

Tuck

Yang

K. W.

(2014). R-Words: Refusing research. In Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223–247).

78.

Walters

Stately

Evans-Campbell

Simoni

Duran

Schultz

Stanley

Charles

Guerrero

(2009). Indigenist” collaborative research efforts in Native American communities. In Stiffman

A. R.

(Ed.), The field research survival guide (pp. 146–173). Oxford University Press.

79.

Wilson

(2001). What is an Indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175–179.

80.

Wilson

(2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.

81.

Wilson

Hughes

(2019). Why research is reconciliation. In Wilson

Breen

A. V.

DuPré

(Eds), Research & reconciliation: Unsettling ways of knowing through Indigenous relationships (pp. 5–20). Canadian Scholars.

82.

Windchief

Cummins

(2022). Considering Indigenous research methodologies: Bicultural accountability and the protection of community held knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021803