From Protocols to Practice: Integrating Wahkohtowin and Keeoukaywin in Community-Based Research Methodologies

Abstract

Examining the community-engaged research of three Indigenous researchers (nêhiyaw and Métis) at varying stages of our academic journeys, this paper reviews and analyzes Indigenous research methodologies rooted in Indigenous practices, culture, and ways of knowing. We focus on storytelling and Talking Circles, guided by the principles of keeoukaywin—a nêhiyaw/Métis cultural practice of visiting—and wahkohtowin—a nêhiyaw/Métis concept of relationality. We share how our research endeavors are uniquely shaped by these methodologies, qualitative methods, and principles, despite our diverse interests, community partners, and place-based research contexts.

Introduction

Indigenous ways of knowing and being have long been dismissed within academia and research but are experiencing a resurgence with growing acceptance and an increase in Indigenous scholars in the academy. As nêhiyaw (Cree) and Métis scholars at different stages of our academic journeys with diverse experiences in employing Indigenous methodologies, we demonstrate how shared Indigenous methodologies and methods can be applied differently to serve varying purposes. Through our comparative analysis of three distinct research projects, we argue that wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin function as foundational decolonizing principles that challenge Western research paradigms by prioritizing relationality, reciprocity, and community accountability. Our work contributes to Indigenous methodology scholarship by demonstrating how these concepts can be operationalized across diverse research contexts while maintaining their cultural integrity and transformative potential.

Central to our research frameworks is the concept of wahkohtowin, deeply rooted in nêhiyaw epistemology and adapted within Métis communities through kinship and cultural exchange (Borrows, 2006; Flaminio, 2015; Macdougall, 2005). Wahkohtowin embodies a protocol of relationship-building and reciprocity, guiding economic, political, social, and cultural endeavors (Macdougall, 2010). This principle is significant in understanding the interconnectedness of all beings and connection to Land ¹ (Flaminio, 2015; Gaudet, 2019). Similarly, keeoukaywin, or “the visiting way,” emerges as a fundamental nêhiyaw cultural practice that has been maintained and practiced within Métis communities through ongoing kinship relationships, which preserves intergenerational knowledge, nurtures relationships, is impermeable by design, and perpetuates cultural continuity (Gaudet, 2019, p. 47; Tuck et al., 2022). In research, keeoukaywin encourages self-reflection and fosters accountability to community partners, enriching the collaborative research process (Absolon, 2011; Gaudet, 2019). Métis scholar Lindsay DuPré (2025) distinguishes keeoukaywin as unique within an Indigenous context, prioritizing relational connections, stories, and care. While the practice might look like or involve conversation (like an interview), it should not be reduced to or used as a substitute for a standard research method, as doing so would strip it of its cultural significance by misrepresenting its unique epistemological foundations and processes (DuPré, 2025).

At the heart of each of our shared methodologies is storytelling, a cultural practice that offers a non-linear pathway to learning and engaging with knowledge (Gaudet, 2016). Within Indigenous communities, storytelling goes beyond mere narration; it embodies cultural resilience through the transfer of generational knowledge and wisdom (Fiske, 2008; Fletcher & Denham, 2008). As researchers, our approach to storytelling is grounded in deep respect and cultural understanding, allowing narratives to unfold naturally while ensuring authenticity and accurate representation.

In addition to storytelling, our methodology embraces the practice of Talking or Sharing Circles, an Indigenous way of communicating that facilitates decision making, and often healing. Unlike conventional focus groups, Talking Circles create unique environments, encouraging profound listening and reciprocal sharing (Kurtz, 2013; Lavallée, 2009; Legault, 2024).

Through our personal experiences, stories, and research journeys as a professor, doctoral candidate, and masters student, we share insights into embodying these Indigenous ways of knowing within our respective work. We acknowledge that Indigenous methodologies are not only guiding frameworks but are also ways of being and knowing for Indigenous Peoples. Our analysis reveals three key theoretical contributions: (1) wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin function as decolonizing forces that disrupt extractive research practices, (2) these concepts demonstrate remarkable adaptability while maintaining cultural authenticity across different research contexts, and (3) their implementation requires ongoing community accountability that challenges traditional researcher-subject power dynamics. In alignment with Indigenous research approaches (Legault et al., 2024), below we situate ourselves through introducing our backgrounds and the places from which our perspectives emerge.

About the Authors

Gabrielle Legault is Red River Métis from Lac Pelletier, Saskatchewan in Treaty 4 and an Assistant Professor in Indigenous Studies at University of British Columbia (UBC), Okanagan in Syilx Territory, British Columbia, Canada, specializing in community-led research focused on Indigenous well-being and identity. She is Denica’s PhD supervisor and co-supervises Dante’s MA with Onyx Sloan-Morgan.

Denica Bleau is a Red River Métis and mixed-settler scholar, social worker, trauma counselor, advocate, and artist, originally from Treaty 4, and is completing her PhD at UBC Okanagan, focusing on Indigenous Land-based healing from the effects of criminalized and institutionalized trauma.

Dante Carter is a mixed-settler and nêhiyaw ² -iskwêw (Cree woman) from Onion Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 6 Territory. She is pursuing her masters at UBC Okanagan, which is focused on the narratives of Indigenous women and Two-Spirited people who have overcome economic abuse. Her research was conducted in partnership with her home community.

Background: Shared Research Approaches

Wahkohtowin in Research

Wahkohtowin reflects a nêhiyaw epistemology rooted in relationship-building and reciprocity (Campbell, 2007; Fortna, 2022; Gaudet, 2019). Within Métis communities, wahkohtowin has been maintained and adapted through kinship networks and cultural practices (Macdougall, 2010). Macdougall (2005) explains that wahkohtowin, as a theoretical construct, can be used to understand how Métis communities made decisions socially, culturally, and economically. As a cultural law, it includes principles and protocols that guide our interactions with each other, informed by our relationships with people and the Land (Macdougall, 2010). Wahkohtowin encompasses a responsibility to uphold and foster relationships with kin and the Land through connecting and visiting with one another (Fortna, 2022; Gaudet, 2019). John Borrows, an Anishinaabe Indigenous law scholar, emphasizes that wahkohtowin serves as the overarching law governing all relations, guided by Creator and natural law, and influenced by beings such as plants and animals (2006). This principle shapes interpersonal relationships within families, communities, and governance, stressing reciprocal relationships and mutual care (Gaudet, 2019).

Nêhiyaw scholar Matthew Wildcat (2018) outlines three facets of wahkohtowin: (1) relations with others (including humans, animals, Land, and other non-humans), (2) spirit (recognizing that all creation has spirit), and (3) relationality (the responsibility of maintaining relationships). Wahkohtowin maintains protocols of care and community responsibility (2018). Employed in contemporary contexts, it aims to repair the harms of colonialism by fostering responsible community care (Flaminio, 2015). Colonization disrupted wahkohtowin, leading to broken traditional roles and the disruption of family systems (Flaminio, 2015). As a decolonizing methodology, wahkohtowin challenges Western research paradigms that prioritize objectivity and distance by insisting on what nêhiyaw scholar Shawn Wilson (2008) terms “relational accountability” and reciprocal responsibility between researchers and communities.

Several scholars have engaged with wahkohtowin in their research and scholarship. For instance, Métis scholar Cindy Gaudet (2016) uses wahkohtowin to guide her research, led by relationships with family, community, and the Land, and engaging with participants through reciprocity. Gaudet further integrates wahkohtowin into her visiting methodology, keeoukaywin, to guide interactions. Gaudet (2019) positions wahkohtowin as a reciprocal obligation that can be upheld through keeoukaywin or visiting. As such, Gaudet (2019) explains that embedding wahkohtowin into the relational practices found in community-based research can strengthen kinship and allow us to recognize each other as people instead of being categorized, such as the researcher and the researched. Wildcat (2018) explores wahkohtowin’s role in legal and political order, facilitating respectful decision making and its application in the Maskwacîs school system. Métis scholar Anna Louisa Flaminio (2015) uses wahkohtowin in the Gladue process, emphasizing the importance of maintaining relationality in the legal system. Shalene Jobin, a nêhiyaw and Métis scholar, describes wahkohtowin in relation to Indigenous economic resurgence and self-determination (2023). Jobin explains that colonial dissonance breaks the interconnectedness of wahkohtowin, harming both individual and collective well-being. Similarly, Maria Campbell, a Métis scholar and Elder, asserts that “the healing is knowledge” within keeoukaywin, highlighting the role of learning through everyday activities in the context of wahkohtowin (cited in Flaminio, 2015). Together, these Indigenous scholars illustrate the profound impact of wahkohtowin across various fields, emphasizing its essential role in fostering responsible and holistic research relationships, cultural continuity, and community resilience.

Keeoukaywin in Research

Keeoukaywin, a nêhiyaw concept taken up widely within Métis communities, refers to the cultural practice of visiting (Flaminio & Dorion, 2024; Gaudet, 2019). It involves taking intentional time to be with each other, share food, tell stories, and build relationships. Keeoukaywin is described as meeting together over tea, listening, and understanding each other’s perspectives (Flaminio et al., 2020). It involves the gifting and receiving of knowledge through visiting processes. Gaudet (2019) emphasizes that keeoukaywin connects knowledge to self, Land, and community through storytelling and visiting. Similarly, Tuck et al. (2022) view visiting as an Indigenous feminist practice that is characterized by responsibility to both the past and in the present, focused on relationality to space and time.

DuPré (2025) conceptualizes visiting as both a method of data collection and a process of data analysis, each with distinct roles in the research process. As a data collection method, she describes visiting as guided by five interrelated principles: (1) response to space and place, (2) identity and kinship, (3) informal engagement, (4) reciprocity, and (5) safety and care. These principles inform how relationships are built and how knowledge is shared within research settings. As a method of data analysis, DuPré outlines four interconnected stages: Reflection, Remembering, Re-Visiting, and Re-telling. These stages support an iterative and relational approach to interpreting data in ways that remain accountable to participants and communities.

Other Indigenous Nations also practice unique forms of visiting. Anishinaabe scholar Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (2017) discusses the effort nations historically took to engage in relationality through visiting, building empathy, trust, and connection to Land and ancestors. Similarly, yarning, an Australian Aboriginal methodology, shares principles with visiting, as it focuses on relational accountability and sharing stories and information (Barlo et al., 2021). Tuck et al. (2022) expand on this thought, noting that visiting involves a responsibility to continue the intergenerational knowledge facilitated through visiting. Visiting within research is a continuation of Indigenous practices, protocols, and care, rather than trying to fit Indigenous practices into already established Western methodological practices (DuPré, 2025). In this way, visiting is a continuation of relationships and upholding these relationships, and it is not extractive, but instead grounded in care and reciprocity. As a decolonizing research practice, keeoukaywin disrupts Western academic timelines and productivity demands by insisting on relational time (i.e., time that unfolds according to relationship needs rather than institutional schedules). This temporal sovereignty challenges colonial research frameworks that prioritize efficiency over relationship-building.

Keeoukaywin is relational and interconnected with ways of being and knowing, involving the passing down of non-linear knowledge shared through visiting and story. It creates space for emotions and preserves cultural practices and connection to Land (Gaudet, 2016; Lafferty, 2022). In research, keeoukaywin fosters self-reflection and emphasizes emotional responsibility within community research, contrasting with Western methods by prioritizing deep relationship-building and accountability to community partners (Gaudet, 2019). Furthermore, Tuck et al. (2022) consider visiting in research as being at the heart of how research is approached and how connections are made through research. In our experiences, both wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin each serve as foundational guidelines for storytelling and Talking Circle practices in research.

Storytelling in Research

For Indigenous peoples, storytelling is a crucial aspect of preserving cultural resilience and generational knowledge. Through various types of stories, such as legends and myths, Indigenous communities sustain and convey their knowledge, teaching morals, values, and history (Armstrong, 2000; Flicker et al., 2014; Yunkaporta, 2020). Storytelling extends beyond oral narratives to include dances, songs, artwork, and other forms of communication that impart knowledge, morals, laws, and experiences (Kermoal & Altamirano-Jiménez, 2016; Simpson, 2017; Windchief, 2018). Practices such as drumming, singing, carving, weaving, beading, dancing, and dreaming are deeply interwoven with storytelling, connecting our physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual selves (Armstrong, 2000; Flicker et al., 2014; Yunkaporta, 2020).

Many Indigenous scholars have discussed the importance of stories within Indigenous communities. Wilson (2008) identifies different types of stories: sacred stories (protected stories), legends (morals or lessons about events), personal experiences (counseling or teaching), and talk-story (collective knowledge sharing and decision making). Stories provide support and guidance, offering insights, direction, and empathy, rooted in relationality (Miller, 1996; Streit & Mason, 2017). Syilx scholar Jeannette Armstrong (2000) emphasizes that stories offer advice for facing challenges and making decisions, serving as moments of teaching and counseling. Harold Johnson, a nêhiyaw Elder and legal scholar, illustrated the significance of stories in Indigenous governance: “Governance before the Indian Act? That’s easy. We were governed by stories. Not dogma. That’s the opposite. Our governance system was based on storytelling, not on story-abiding. We weren’t ruled by stories” (2022, p. 167). This highlights how traditional stories influence contemporary decision making and future generations’ decision making.

In research, storytelling emphasizes respect, relationality, and reciprocity, essential for conducting Indigenous research (Archibald, 2008). Understanding the importance of storytelling involves recognizing the protocols of safety and respect for both teller and listener regarding how, when, why, and with whom stories are shared (Flaminio, 2015; Wilson, 2008). Storytelling allows a fluid way of learning, placing power in the hands of the storyteller to convey the story’s significance, especially considering the importance of language and the potential loss of meaning in translation (Rieger et al., 2023). Elders, Knowledge Keepers, and storytellers caution about the listener’s mental and emotional preparedness, as stories hold power that can impact positively or negatively (Johnson, 2022; Wilson, 2008). Stories may be shared based on specific life situations or milestones, carrying responsibilities for both teller and listener (Johnson, 2022; Wilson, 2008).

Practices such as yarning (Yunkaporta, 2020), storywork (Archibald, 2008; McCarty et al., 2018), and visiting (Gaudet, 2019), are integral to the relational practice of storytelling, promoting relationship-building and idea sharing, while wahkohtowin informs the relationships that guide how, when, where, and to whom stories are shared (Campbell, 2007). For instance, researchers are encouraged to respect the storyteller’s readiness to share stories (Iseke-Barnes, 2009). Culturally safe practices involve natural pauses in communication, following the storyteller’s direction, and potentially stopping or returning later as directed (Kovach, 2021). Storytelling in research evolves naturally, embracing non-linear knowledge sharing (Kovach, 2021; Yunkaporta, 2020). Researchers are also encouraged to practice reflexivity, being mindful of their emotions and reactions, and considering their past experiences (Kovach, 2021). Continuous consultation with storytellers ensures accurate representation and framing of stories, fostering relational knowledge and cultural safety (Gaudet, 2019).

Talking Circles

Talking Circles, also called Sharing Circles, are practiced among many different Indigenous Nations; however, protocols and processes vary. Within the context of our work, such circles allowed for culturally safe practices for engaging and learning, following Indigenous protocols, practices, and principles, including keeoukaywin, wahkohtowin, and storytelling (Gaudet, 2019; Kurtz, 2013; Lavallée, 2009; McIvor, 2010; Tachine et al., 2016; Weber-Pillwax, 2004; Wilson, 2008). Conducted in a circle, these discussions symbolize reciprocity and equality, where personal and collective knowledge is valued equally (Kurtz, 2013; Lavallée, 2009; Wilson, 2008). Lynn Lavallée (2009), an Algonquin, Cree, and Métis scholar, and Wilson (2008) emphasize respecting and honoring knowledge within these circles. Métis scholar Donna Kurtz (2013) and Lavallée (2009) stress intentional listening and learning, embodying emotionality. In the context of cultural safety, active participation involves the heart, mind, body, and spirit, informed by these ways of knowing and being (Kurtz, 2013; Lavallée, 2009). Within a Talking Circle, storytelling shares insights and experiences, but it can also be used for knowledge generation, mobilization, and decision making.

While traditionally used for healing and decision making, Talking Circles are now also used in research, yet in doing so, require caution. In doing so, researchers are required to uphold not only university ethics but also Indigenous protocols of respect, relationality, and reciprocity (Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2008). In some community contexts, Sharing or Talking Circles may not be appropriate for research and may not be recorded. Within our own work, the use of recorded Talking Circles as a research method was requested or affirmed as appropriate by community partners. While for both Gabrielle and Dante, Talking Circles were affirmed as appropriate by community partners, for Denica this was not the case. She was advised by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) that was guiding her research to instead employ Focus Group Circles. The CAC stated that Talking Circles may invite participants to share their own personal stories, which cannot be interrupted during a Talking Circle, in accordance to local protocol. Focus Group Circles instead focus on a question-answer format, while allow for some space for sharing shorter stories, so were the agreed upon approach. Respecting community-specific contexts and protocols is crucial for maintaining cultural safety, and prioritize participants’ well-being (Kovach, 2021; Kurtz, 2013). This example illustrates how approaching research through the dual lens’ of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin requires researchers to prioritize community protocols over methodological consistency, demonstrating the adaptive and accountable nature of Indigenous research approaches. In the following sections, we describe how our projects utilized some or all of these approaches and reflect on our shared experiences.

Theoretical Framework: Decolonizing Research Through Relationality

Wilson (2008) explains that an Indigenous paradigm is grounded in an inherent obligation to relationships with participants and community, known as relational accountability. Indigenous research involves processes that include reciprocity, accountability, and personal responsibility (Hermes, 1998; Weber-Pillwax, 2004). Within Indigenous research, this can mean including community members through all aspects of research, with the institutional researcher acting not as a knowledge expert but facilitator of research processes. Wilson describes this process as being a sacred Ceremony itself, as ceremonies involve bringing together people to bridge space through relationship-building (2015, personal communication). To engage in research, it is essential that reciprocal long-term relationships are established to ensure mutual benefits and community ownership of knowledge and outcomes of research (Hutchinson et al., 2014; Kurtz, 2013).

Our collective work contributes to decolonial methodology scholarship by demonstrating how wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin function as transformative research principles that challenge colonial academic structures. Wahkohtowin, as a guiding research principle and theoretical construct, challenges researchers to act in reciprocity and reconsider power dynamics in community-based research (Gaudet, 2019). Furthermore, keeoukaywin as a qualitative research method can guide how we approach knowledge gathering and knowledge co-creation, contradicting extractive and transactional colonial research methods (Absolon, 2011; Gaudet, 2019; Tuck et al., 2022).

Drawing from decolonial theorists, we position these concepts not merely as alternative methods but as epistemological frameworks that fundamentally restructure power relations in research (Clarke & Yellow Bird, 2020; Simpson, 2014; Smith, 1999; Wildcat et al., 2014). This aligns with broader Indigenous resurgence movements that emphasize sovereignty over knowledge production and dissemination (Hudson et al., 2023; Juhnke, 2025; Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). Our three cases illustrate varying manifestations of this decolonizing potential while highlighting the contextual adaptability required for ethical implementation.

Gabrielle: The Kelowna Urban Indigenous Youth Project

The Kelowna Urban Indigenous Youth Project, conducted in collaboration with the Kelowna Métis Association, from 2022 to 2024, invited urban Indigenous youth living in Kelowna, British Columbia, to lead conversations and participate in Land-based and cultural activities focused on identity and well-being. Indigenous youth are often excluded from discussions about their health, wellness, politics, and education. Therefore, the study’s design was co-developed with youth to ensure their voices were central. Youth expressed that they felt safe to express their needs and desires, as a result of reciprocal relationships that were formed throughout the project, demonstrating keeoukaywin and wahkohtowin. Although the project had a general direction, many aspects evolved based on the youth’s input. This project exemplifies how wahkohtowin disrupts traditional researcher authority by positioning youth as co-creators rather than subjects, fundamentally challenging colonial research paradigms that extract knowledge from communities. The research was guided by the following questions:

(1) How do urban Indigenous youth perceive their own Indigenous identity?

(2) How do youth perceptions of their Indigenous identity shift when they engage in community activities within urban Indigenous organizations?

(3) How does a strengthened knowledge of self and an improved sense of Indigenous identity impact urban Indigenous youth’s holistic well-being?

The project involved engaging nine youth in two virtual visits, three Talking Circles, and a series of youth-determined cultural activities facilitated by Elders and Knowledge Keepers. The following sections describe the research methods used, emphasizing how they reflect an Indigenous approach grounded in care, respectful relationships, wahkohtowin, and keeoukaywin.

Virtual Visiting

Initially described as interviews, virtual one-on-one sessions were reframed as “visits” in response to a participant’s concerns about the formality and potential trauma associated with institutional interviews. Inspired by Gaudet’s description of keeoukaywin, these visits were guided by “intuition, sense of responsibility, love, and values” (Gaudet, 2019, p. 55), aiming to create “caring, deliberate visiting spaces” (p. 60). The visits varied in length and tone, depending on the researcher's familiarity with the participants. This adaptation demonstrates how keeoukaywin’s temporal sovereignty (i.e., operating on relational rather than institutional time) creates space for participant agency and comfort that colonial research methods often constrain. Following Gaudet’s advice, we set aside preconceived notions of successful research and fully engaged in the visiting process.

Talking Circles for Planning and Sharing

Each Talking Circle was planned with guidance from Métis Elder/Knowledge Keeper Brenda Hebert, who acted as an advisor throughout the study, ensuring adherence to cultural protocols. These circles were recorded, transcribed, and reviewed by participants for accuracy. Initially unsure about the research team’s role in the circles, we learned from Elder Brenda that in accordance with the protocols that she had been taught, everyone present is required to gather within the circle, as excluding anyone would disrupt the equality and shared responsibility central to Indigenous law. This inclusivity allowed all research team members to participate, which strengthened relationships and blurred the lines between researchers and participants. This protocol illustrates wahkohtowin’s disruption of hierarchical research structures and power dynamics, and instead insisting on equality and shared responsibility.

One participant brought her young child to the circle, reinforcing the inclusivity inherent within such Indigenous practices. The child’s presence added joy and humor, highlighting the intergenerational nature of the gatherings. The circles began with Ceremony, including smudging, prayers, and sometimes songs and drumming, led by Brenda. We passed a feather to signify the speaker’s turn, promoting deep listening and focused attention and avoided cross-talking. Shared meals took place in advance of the circles and were an integral part of these gatherings, fostering relationships and a sense of community (Anderson, 2011; Kermoal, 2016). All of these aspects of the project align with the relational and reciprocal practices of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin.

Collaborative Analysis through Story and Talking Circle

Initially, the study aimed to use narrative analysis to understand participants’ experiences. However, after discussions with the youth, collaborative thematic analysis became the preferred method. The youth wrote their own stories about their experiences, which were then shared and collectively co-analyzed in a Talking Circle. This consensus-driven decision to change research approaches respected the youth’s autonomy and voice, ensuring a meaningful and accurate interpretation of their narratives. This methodological shift demonstrates how wahkohtowin requires researchers to remain accountable to community preferences over academic conventions, demonstrating the transformative potential of Indigenous methodologies to challenge institutional research requirements. Centering the notion of relational accountability and wahkohtowin in this research, it was essential that participants maintained a sense of autonomy over their words and could share their unique voice throughout the process including through determining the method of analysis, which resulted in a generative co-developed approach for reading across diverse narratives. Overall, the Kelowna Urban Indigenous Youth Project emphasized collaboration, power-sharing, and respect for Indigenous knowledge systems. Involving participants as co-creators and acknowledging their essential role in shaping the study enriched the research design and led to more nuanced and meaningful findings.

Denica: Land, Story, and Land-Based Story as Methodology

Land-based healing involves spending intentional, embodied time with the Land, while recognizing our reciprocal relationship with it. In this practice, we both learn from the Land and teach it, gaining insights about the Land itself and about ourselves. This healing approach reconnects individuals to themselves through traditional and cultural practices, acknowledging the severe impacts of colonial harm and trauma on our holistic well-being—spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical—as well as our connections to community and Land. In aligning with wahkohtowin, our relationship and respect to the Land impact and mirror our relationships in community and in maintaining personal wellness. Visiting on, and with, the Land, is an intimate experience that is understood in practicing keeoukaywin. My research demonstrates how wahkohtowin extends beyond human relationships to include Land as an active participant in healing and knowledge generation, challenging Western therapeutic models that separate healing from place and environment.

My research examines Indigenous Land-based healing as a response to the effects of criminalized and institutionalized trauma. Rather than viewing Land-based healing as supplementary to Western therapies, this approach positions Land-based healing as a primary form of healing. I collaborated with the community of Splatsin, part of the Secwépemc Nation, to develop a community-led, Land-based healing program framework specifically for individuals who have experienced trauma from institutionalization and criminalization. Using Focus Group Circles, we followed relational practices of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin. Our collaborative process included diverse community voices: Community members, including Elders, Knowledge Keepers, those with Land-based knowledge, previously incarcerated individuals, and their family members. All participants were invited to share perspectives, insights, and knowledge, to inform the framework’s development. After completing the initial co-development phase, Splatsin Kukpi7 and Tk̓wam7ípla7 (Chief and Council), community member participants, and my doctoral committee recommended expanding consultation to include others who have experienced criminalization or incarceration within the Secwepemc Nation and beyond. At the time of writing, I am continuing this consultation process with Indigenous community members. The framework will be utilized, implemented, and evaluated separately from this research.

The methodology guiding both my research and Land-based healing practice is Land, Story, and Land-based Story as Methodology. This approach draws from teachings of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin. Wahkohtowin establishes that all relationships—with Land, animals, humans, and both animate and inanimate beings—are meant to be reciprocal and demonstrate respect (Campbell, 2007). The Land teaches us through Stories, while Stories explain and demonstrate teachings from the Land, forming the foundation of wahkohtowin (Campbell, 2007). By following wahkohtowin, we learn how to treat and respect ourselves, our community, the Land, protocols, and cultural law. Keeoukaywin emerges from Land-based teachings and represents both current and historical knowledge and practice. The Land has always provided teachings and continues to sustain those who listen to it (Gaudet, 2019). Keeoukaywin emphasizes the importance of visiting with the Land and others, while actively maintaining relationships through protocols and reciprocity.

My methodology asserts that Land and Story inform how we conduct ourselves in community and research. The Land holds the collective relationships of an ecosystem, while also being a relative and teacher, encompassing plants, rocks, air, and the sky, containing spiritual and relational significance. The healing relationship with Land proves difficult to articulate because colonization has reframed Land as a resource to extract from, rather than a relative we care for, who reciprocally cares for us. Colonization has created both systemic and interpersonal forms of oppression, that damage our relationships with Land and Story, resulting in depleted physical, social, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

Research Methods

This study employs Storytelling and Focus Group Circles as primary methods, both connected to the Land and guided by the principles of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin. The Land-based healing program emphasizes self-awareness in relation to others and the Land, highlighting our responsibility for maintaining wellness and accountability to both. Incorporating health and wellness practices for the benefit of Land and community is essential in actively practicing wahkohtowin, with these practices maintained and communicated through keeoukaywin.

Throughout my research, I actively participate in wahkohtowin by maintaining consistent, reciprocal relationships with important people and places that inform my work. These relationships hold me accountable while guiding me to conduct research in a good way. Some of these relationships include those with my PhD supervisor, Elder mentors, Indigenous friends, students and scholars, my family, and the Land. For example, I engage in keeoukaywin by visiting with Gabrielle and Kye7e Jean Brown about my research, seeking guidance on maintaining and practicing community protocols. During my comprehensive examination focused on methodology, I intentionally wrote on the Land and Territories of the Simpcw and Tsq’escenemc, avoiding technological distractions to engage in writing about the Land, on and with the Land, and thus enacting wahkohtowin. I continued this visiting on the Land, during my in-field research, on Syilx, Secwepemc, and Puyallup Lands. This learning practice, though often unrecognized or validated in settler-colonial academia, is essential in upholding Indigenous ontology, epistemology, and pedagogy, embodying and honoring the principles of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin. These practices illustrate how wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin challenge academic spatial boundaries by insisting on Land-based knowledge generation that operates outside institutional confines.

My research approach maintained flexibility in design, in honoring community needs above academic institutional needs. This became relevant for changing research questions, which were designed by the CAC, changing meeting times to respect community losses and protocols, and spending extended time with community members to confront university barriers for community members accessing honoraria. Moreover, as a result of having a total of 10 Splatsin community participants during the initial program design, I was challenged that the research could be questioned for validity, which could affect the strength of my doctoral defense. In visiting with Kye7e Jean Brown, I am reminded that in the context of community groups, healing circles, and other community focused events and wellness, “Who is meant to be there, will be there.”

Within Indigenous research contexts, rigor and validity are not measured by quantity but by the depth and integrity of relationships, responsibilities, and knowledge-sharing processes. Wilson (2008) reminds us that relational accountability is the true measure of quality, rather than the size of a participant pool. Similarly, Kovach (2021) and Absolon (2011) each describe how Indigenous methodologies privilege contextual and relational validity, where the meaningfulness of stories and teachings shared in Circle cannot be reduced to numerical indicators. Smith (1999) cautions against applying Western metrics of validity, emphasizing instead the importance of relevance and benefit to community, reinforcing that culturally grounded standards of rigor are rooted in Indigenous values of accountability, reciprocity, and collective well-being. From this perspective, the number of participants is secondary to the cultural, relational, and ethical integrity of the research process and that quantifying value based on numbers defeats the inherent values of wahkohtowin, to tend to our responsibility in relationships and relationality (Maria Campbell, in Flaminio, 2015).

Storytelling in Research and Community Settings

Storytelling has consistently informed my research. Hearing the Stories of incarcerated individuals and those traumatized by criminalization inspired me to co-create a Land-based healing program. Storytelling serves dual purposes: honoring the intimate Stories of those who have experienced carceral and criminalized trauma, while utilizing Stories as a healing mechanism. Focus Group Circles integrate and immerse Storytelling throughout the process. Drawing from my previous experience leading wellness and creative programming within Indigenous communities and participating in Talking Circles, I recognized the importance of using Circles to inform program framework creation. In my research, I met with community members seven times to co-facilitate Focus Group Circles. We followed Splatsin-specific protocols in opening and closing the circle, shared food, visited, and shared Stories to respectfully develop a program framework incorporating various community perspectives.

By following Storytelling protocols and keeoukaywin within Focus Group Circles, all community members were viewed as equals and highly valued for their lived experience and knowledge. By following these principles, Stories were held with care according to the guidance of Storytellers, ensuring confidentiality and respecting that not all Stories are meant to be recorded or re-shared. These methods and the underlying principles of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin were essential for developing a program framework that best serves community needs.

Dante: Nanâtawihowin (Healing & Finding Place)

Economic self-determination is fundamental to Indigenous well-being. My master’s research, titled “nanâtawihowin (Healing & Finding Place) Through Economic Self-Determination,” examines how economic abuse affects nêhiyaw women and Two-Spirited individuals and identifies the factors that help them to overcome this harm. Nanâtawihowin encompasses the emotional, cultural, and physical journey of finding one’s place and healing from cultural and identity disconnection (Starblanket et al., 2019). Economic abuse represents a form of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) that undermines self-determination through systematic targeting of individuals. This abuse may include depleting savings, causing property damage that leads to housing insecurity, and neglecting mortgage or rental payments (Postmus et al., 2020). Economic abuse is frequently linked to gender-based economic insecurity, which colonial economic systems exacerbate, thereby increasing the risk of violence towards women (Heidinger, 2021; National Inquiry, 2019; Postmus et al., 2020). Insufficient government and community support further heightens this risk (Heidinger, 2021).

Indigenous women and Two-Spirit individuals experience the highest rates of IPV and economic instability in Canada, necessitating research into how personal violence affects their well-being (Heidinger, 2021). Traditional Indigenous economic practices are deeply connected to personal and community well-being, preserving the Land and cultural knowledge (Heidinger, 2021). However, colonial economic systems have eroded Indigenous economics, contributing to diminished well-being, particularly for communities like Onion Lake Cree Nation where housing problems and limited job opportunities intensify the impacts of IPV and economic insecurity (Amnesty International Canada, 2016). While there is literature on how colonial economics and infrastructural violence compound IPV and affect well-being, research surrounding Indigenous peoples’ experiences of economic abuse is lacking. Studying economic abuse and its effects on the well-being of Indigenous women and Two-Spirit individuals is necessary for identifying protective factors that safeguard their well-being. This research demonstrates how wahkohtowin principles applied to economic relationships can reveal pathways to healing that challenge both patriarchal and colonial systems of control.

My guiding research question is: “How have Indigenous women and Two-Spirited individuals, in Onion Lake Cree Nation overcome experiences of economic abuse to foster wellbeing?” Using a nêhiyaw Peoplehood Methodology, this research centers the lived experiences and narratives of nêhiyaw women and Two-Spirited individuals from Onion Lake Cree Nation. This community-engaged research operates through partnership with the Healing and Wellness Centre in Onion Lake, ensuring culturally safe research practices through Sharing Circles, narrative analysis, and community guidance. As a researcher from Onion Lake Cree Nation, my community connections have been essential in shaping this work as a community-embedded researcher.

Peoplehood as a Methodology

This research uses “peoplehood” as a methodology, guided by nêhiyaw epistemology, ontology, and axiology and embodying nêhiyaw concepts of nanâtawihowin and wahkohtowin. Peoplehood, from an Indigenous perspective, is rooted in self-determination and Indigenous sovereignty, emphasizing the interlocking features of language, territory/Land, ceremonial cycles, and living histories, recognizing disruptions to these practices as threats to everyday life (Corntassel, 2012). In a nêhiyaw context, language, Land, and Ceremony are fundamental to identity and culture, guiding ways of being and knowing (Jobin, 2023). Jobin applies the peoplehood model as a research methodology by considering how traditional nêhiyaw kinship structures and cultural economic systems affect individual and a community sovereignty and identity (Jobin, 2023). This research extends Peoplehood Methodology by examining how economic abuse disrupts the four elements of peoplehood, while keeoukaywin and wahkohtowin provide pathways for restoration and healing. This interconnectedness guides my community engagement and research process. Since colonial economic systems have historically undermined Indigenous identity and self-determination, adopting a Peoplehood Methodology represents an act of reclamation and resurgence.

Jobin (2013) explains the ceremonial cycle’s role in research as guiding the research planning process. Margaret Kovach, a nêhiyaw and Saulteaux scholar, emphasizes conducting research “in a good way” by learning and respecting community protocols (Kovach, 2021). This inclusivity extends to the involvement of Elders, ensuring cultural guidance and adherence to nêhiyaw storytelling traditions while fostering a culturally safe and respectful environment for participants. This commitment to respect and accountability permeates every aspect of my research, from question formulation to knowledge dissemination.

Language connects significantly to Indigenous ways of knowing and being, including knowledge transmission (Jobin, 2013; Gaudet). Flaminio (2015) connects language to supporting the understanding and revitalization of wahkohtowin, which can have a healing effect on communities. Therefore, any nêhiyawêwin (nêhiyaw language) used in the Sharing Circle discussions were retained verbatim in transcripts to preserve their meaning (Jobin, 2013).

Land plays a vital role in shaping Indigenous identity and well-being, particularly in light of systemic injustices like colonialism and capitalism, which disproportionately impact Indigenous communities and Lands, including Onion Lake Cree Nation (Jobin, 2023). Recognizing colonial influences as “living histories” enabled reflection on past and present injustices within the Sharing Circles, exploring traditional well-being practices, economic disparities, and colonialism’s enduring impacts while fostering informed dialogue and understanding.

Collaborative Approaches to Analyzing Stories

The Sharing Circles created safe, loosely structured spaces where participants and the Elder advisor could share stories in settings built on trust and confidentiality. Though initially more participants were expected, only three community members were ultimately able to attend, due to a range of circumstances including recent losses in the community. Despite Western institutional concerns about sample size and perspectives regarding validity, my Elder advisor reminded me that the depth of stories carries its own significance. Similar to Denica’s experience, this tension illustrates how wahkohtowin challenges Western research validity standards by prioritizing depth of relationship and story over quantity of data, asserting Indigenous ways of determining research quality and significance. These circles—each lasting 3 hours, followed by a shared meal—offered rich, intergenerational dialogue that reflected “living histories.” My research approach allowed for flexibility, giving participants the option to attend all or some of the circles, and did not adhere to strict timing, instead allowing for fluid breaks. This approach, guided by wahkohtowin, upheld the practice of respecting relationships with participants and operating on relational rather than institutional timeframes.

Following the three Sharing Circles and a member checking process, I applied a layered analysis approach that combined four Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches. These included Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), the principles of Indigenous Storywork (Archibald, 2008, 2024), elements of Peoplehood Methodology (Jobin, 2023), and Clarke and Braun’s (2016) thematic analysis.

Narrative analysis played a key role in understanding how participants made meaning through Story. Narratives, as Sparkes and Smith (2013) note, shape identity as much as they reflect it. This approach aligned with decolonial methodologies by centering lived experience and relational storytelling, and with Quayle & Sonn’s (2019) view of Stories as “storied data” that reveal both personal and collective dimensions of experience. Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry structured the narrative phase, grounding Stories within continuity (time—past, present, future), interaction (individual and relational conditions), and situation (context) (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). This approach supported a holistic view of experience as nonlinear and co-constructed (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002), allowing for deeper engagement with how Stories moved through and across relationships and generations.

Thematic analysis, used in the next phase, offered a way to identify both patterns and singular insights. When used alone, thematic analysis can overlook outliers or flatten complexity (Rolón-Dow & Bailey, 2021). But combined with narrative inquiry, it helped surface connections across Stories while preserving the nuance of each participant’s voice. This process illuminated how personal Stories were deeply embedded in the collective history and social fabric of Onion Lake Cree Nation, contributing to an emerging community narrative. Additionally, participants were continually invited to review and confirm their stories and involvement in this study (member-checking). This continual consent was done to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty and avoid extractive colonial research practices (Hudson et al., 2023).

As an Indigenous researcher, I was also guided by Jo-ann Archibald’s Indigenous Storywork (2008, 2024). The 4Rs (respect, responsibility, reverence, and reciprocity) shaped how I listened to and worked with Stories. Archibald’s additional principles—holism, synergy, and inter-relatedness—position Stories as living knowledge passed through generations and shaped by collective experience (Archibald, 2024). These teachings informed both the analysis and how I carried the stories forward.

Keeoukaywin, Nanâtawihowin, and Wahkohtowin

Keeoukaywin, nanâtawihowin, and wahkohtowin are integral to this research framework and deeply embedded within the Peoplehood Methodology. The healing process through nanatawihowin often involves storytelling, mirroring the principles of Peoplehood Methodology that emphasize reflexivity, truth-telling, and the resurgence of Traditional relationships and practices (Starblanket et al., 2019). Similarly, wahkohtowin served as a guiding principle for interpersonal relationships within families and communities. It guided my relationships with participants, the Healing and Wellness Centre, and Onion Lake Cree Nation community. Sharing Circles and keeoukaywin facilitate personal connections, creating culturally resonant and flexible spaces for participants to share experiences and perspectives through storytelling and visiting. Keeoukaywin fostered self-reflection and underscores a commitment to community accountability in research practices (Gaudet, 2019). As this community-engaged research continues to unfold, keeoukaywin, nanâtawihowin, and wahkohtowin remain guiding principles. Furthermore, these relational principles contribute to Indigenous research sovereignty through my plans to share all findings back with Onion Lake Cree Nation community. As this research is grounded in self-determination, participants and Onion Lake Cree Nation community will direct future knowledge dissemination and research outputs. My hope is that the reclamation of teachings and stories from this research will allow future research to take place that continues to serve and be led by Onion Lake Cree Nation community.

Comparative Analysis and Discussion

Our three research projects demonstrate both the consistency and contextual adaptability of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin as decolonizing methodologies. Though focused on different communities and research questions, each project illustrates how these principles restructure research relationships, maintain cultural integrity across contexts, and advance Indigenous methodology scholarship.

Across settings, wahkohtowin disrupted colonial research hierarchies by requiring genuine partnership and shared authority. In the Kelowna Urban Indigenous Youth Project, youth became co-creators who determined analytical approaches; in the Land-based Healing study, the Community Advisory Committee directed methodological decisions; and in the nanâtawihowin project, participants’ stories shaped the research trajectory. These examples show how wahkohtowin reframes research from extraction to co-creation, insisting on relational accountability and knowledge as healing by restoring pre-colonial obligations (Campbell, 2007; Macdougall, 2010).

Keeoukaywin further emphasized interconnection, intergenerational knowledge-sharing, and emotional engagement within research partnerships (Gaudet, 2019). Talking Circles, Focus Group Circles, and storytelling—guided by wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin—created culturally safe spaces for collective decision making and knowledge exchange rooted in respect, reciprocity, and inclusivity (Flaminio et al., 2020; Iseke-Barnes, 2009). Language itself became a safeguard for story integrity, allowing narratives to evolve without distortion (Rieger, 2023). Each project also revealed how keeoukaywin challenges Western academic timelines and productivity demands. Virtual visits extended beyond scheduled interview times, Talking Circles proceeded at the pace of relationship-building rather than data collection efficiency, and Focus Group and Talking Circles prioritized depth over quantity of participants. This temporal sovereignty represents a fundamental epistemological challenge to colonial research frameworks that prioritize efficiency over relationship quality. Methodological responsiveness also reinforced these shifts: Talking Circles became Focus Group Circles in one project; another moved from individual to collaborative thematic analysis; and a third accepted three participants rather than privileging larger sample sizes. In each case, community wisdom, accountability, and relationship quality guided choices over institutional standards.

A consistent finding across projects was that Land emerged not as backdrop but as an active participant in knowledge generation. Land provided teachings, grounded accountability, and directed ethical research practices, countering Western tendencies to separate knowledge production from place.

Together, these insights reveal three theoretical contributions to Indigenous methodology scholarship. First, wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin function as decolonizing epistemological forces that challenge assumptions about objectivity, expertise, validity, and knowledge ownership. Researchers become facilitators rather than experts, communities set methodological direction, and validity derives from cultural and relational integrity. This resonates with calls for epistemic disobedience or “insurgent research” that resists colonial knowledge systems (Gaudry, 2011).

Second, these principles are adaptable while retaining cultural integrity. Rather than rigid prescriptions, they operate as living practices that consistently prioritize relationality, reciprocity, and community accountability. Adaptability itself becomes a marker of rigor, contrasting Western emphases on standardization and replicability. As Gaudry (2011, p. 118) notes, Indigenous knowledge systems are “self-validating,” and our projects illustrate how methodological flexibility upholds community sovereignty and responds to locally defined needs.

Third, implementing these principles requires what we term “accountable flexibility”: the ability to adapt research methods according to community guidance while upholding cultural protocol. Unlike institutional ethics frameworks that focus on subject protection, accountable flexibility empowers communities as partners and asserts sovereignty over knowledge production.

Our projects, spanning youth wellness and identity, economic well-being, and healing from incarceration, demonstrate how wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin can be operationalized across disciplines while maintaining their decolonizing potential. Storytelling, visiting practices, and Talking and Focus Group Circles are not simply methods but expressions of these principles.

Taken together, our collective work advances Indigenous methodology scholarship by showing how foundational nêhiyaw principles maintain integrity across diverse contexts while transforming researcher-community relationships. Successful application requires more than adopting Indigenous methods; it demands embracing Indigenous worldviews that cede authority to communities, follow relational rather than institutional timelines, and prioritize cultural protocol over academic convention (Simpson, 2017; Smith, 1999; Tuck & Yang, 2012). In doing so, our projects contribute evidence that Indigenous methodologies disrupt colonial research paradigms, uphold sovereignty, and affirm cultural continuity.

Challenges and Considerations

While our projects demonstrate the transformative potential of wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin, we also acknowledge the challenges of implementing these methodologies within colonial institutional structures. Institutional ethics boards may struggle to understand relational accountability, funding timelines may conflict with community-determined pacing, and academic requirements for standardization may challenge the contextual adaptability these principles require. Future research should explore strategies for navigating these tensions while maintaining methodological integrity.

Moving forward, these practices will continue to act as guiding principles in Indigenous research. However, navigating ethics when employing Indigenous research methods remains challenging, with considerations of validity, accountability, and cultural safety being central to ethical research conduct and approval (Kovach, 2021; Kurtz, 2013). Furthermore, critiques of Indigenous research need to be approached thoughtfully, with sensitivity and reflexivity, recognizing the inherent power dynamics and historical contexts shaping Indigenous research methodologies (Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2008).

Conclusion

Indigenous methodologies, once marginalized, are gaining acceptance as necessary approaches for engaging in community-based research alongside Indigenous communities. Our comparative analysis of three distinct research projects demonstrates that wahkohtowin and keeoukaywin function as more than methodological frameworks. Rather, they represent decolonizing forces that challenge colonial research paradigms by prioritizing relationality, community accountability, and cultural protocol over institutional standards. Central to sharing knowledge and building relationships, wahkohtowin, keeoukaywin, storytelling, and Talking and Focus Group Circles serve as community-emergent concepts and practices that build community resilience, foster intergenerational learning and connection, as well as deep listening. Despite our diverse backgrounds and academic journeys, we each find value in these approaches, as they demonstrate remarkable adaptability across research contexts while maintaining their epistemological integrity and transformative potential, aligning with nêhiyaw and Métis axiologies, which value community involvement, respect for cultural protocol, and the maintenance of reciprocal mutually beneficial relationships.

Our work reveals that these methodologies achieve cultural authenticity through what we term “accountable flexibility,” or, the ability to adapt research approaches based on community guidance while maintaining the integrity of cultural protocols. As such, these research methodologies not only serve as research frameworks but also embody ways of being and knowing that promote holistic well-being, cultural identity, and community resilience. This research contributes to Indigenous methodology scholarship by providing concrete examples of how foundational nêhiyaw principles can be operationalized as decolonizing research practices. Our analysis reveals pathways for implementing Indigenous methodologies that challenge rather than accommodate colonial academic structures, offering guidance for scholars committed to authentic Indigenous research partnerships. Through our collective experiences, we demonstrate that Indigenous methodologies offer transformative potential for decolonizing research when implemented with genuine commitment to community accountability, cultural protocols, and relational responsibility.