Embedded Files
WECLIFS is supported by Ouranos, Gouvernement du Québec, and regional organizations of Eeyou Istchee and Nunavik
1.4. Partnered local food systems research and knowledge co-production in Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee
1.4. Partnered local food systems research and knowledge co-production in Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee
We approached this research project as an opportunity to develop research and knowledge partnerships with provincial, regional, and local organizations with mandates related to wildlife harvesting, wildlife management, health and food security, and climate change adaptation in Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee (Figure 5A). We attempted to integrate new research activities within existing knowledge syntheses, research activities, and adaptation initiatives already underway in these regions. Recognizing the inherent right of individuals, communities, and regional organizations to approve or deny research on their lands and conducted in their communities, and sensitive to five key ethical concerns in research summarized by Cloke et al. (2000) —informed consent, privacy, harm, exploitation, and sensitivity to cultural differences and gender— our approach is based on long-term, ethical, effective and respectful research collaborations with the organizations, communities, and individuals involved throughout the research process (Figure 5B).
Figure 5A. Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee regional organizations (left) and funders (right) supporting the WECLIFS project.
Figure 5B. Collaborative approach to co-develop research with partner organizations.
Because, at the outset of the project, most of the research team (Figure 6) had limited research experience and few established partnerships in northern Quebec, project initiation was organized around two approaches intended to contribute to information sharing and reciprocal benefits from the onset of developing research relationships.
Figure 6. The McGill-based Wildlife, Environmental Change, and Local Indigenous Food Systems (WECLIFS) research team, including principal investigators, students and postdoctoral researchers. Colours indicate primary disciplinary focus and specialization.
A major concern in northern research is striking the appropriate balance between ensuring that research meaningfully engages local people and their knowledge while avoiding research duplication, fatigue, and invasion of privacy. Finding this appropriate balance is especially important in food systems research in which research priorities, methods, and applications are focused on the lives, livelihoods, and health of people, yet topics often overlap with areas of natural, social, and health sciences research where much is already known and much has already been done or is ongoing. Accordingly, in designing the methodology for this proposed research, we made a concerted effort to identify relevant past and ongoing research and, wherever it exists, to try to capitalize on the knowledge it offers (to whatever extent that the knowledge can be shared) rather than proposing new and potentially redundant efforts. We have also attempted to align our research focus and methods with the existing priorities and initiatives of regional organizations to maximize research synergies and minimize redundancies.
Of course, too much reliance on previous research risks offering nothing new and propagating the inevitable limitations of past research efforts and too much reliance on contact with representative organizations and too little time spent working with and listening to individual community members can leave communities feeling unheard and unengaged. The two strategies we employed early in the development of research relationships were intended to find an appropriate balance between too much and too little engagement, which remains a challenge and a work in progress.
We have sought whenever possible to identify relevant past and ongoing research and knowledge summaries, to try to capitalize on the knowledge they offer, if they can be shared, rather than proposing new and potentially redundant efforts. Many of our initial research steps have focused on document-based methods, data-based methods, and remote-sensing. Document-based methods (DOC) include the review, synthesis, and interpretation of documents that are already in the public domain or to which we are provided access. These documents have included peer-reviewed literature, government reports, policy documents, and interview transcripts. Data-based methods (DATA) have involved extracting, summarizing, and analyzing data sources already in the public domain or to which we are provided access. Data sources accessed have included open access sources as well as published data from peer-reviewed literature, government reports, impact assessments, and other sources. The difference between the two categories is DOC methodologies focus on analysis of qualitative content presented as text and DATA methodologies focus on analysis of quantitative content presented in numerical form. We have also employed remote sensing, modelling, and mapping (RS-M-M) to detect and classify climate variation, projected climate change, landscape change, and ecological gradients. Outcomes of these initial DOC, DATA, and RS-M-M methodologies have then been used to guide, inform, and prioritize follow-up stages, where we have proposed more involved methodologies that ask more of individual community members, including forums (FOR), key-informant interviews (KI-INT), community member interviews (CM-INT) and tissue-based analysis of wildlife (WILD). In most cases, FOR have been initiated and organized by regional representative organizations to bring together diverse representatives (e.g., youth, elders, hunters) from most or all communities in the region for purposes of knowledge exchange and sharing, priority setting, etc. When invited, we have attended these forums to hear directly from communities regarding their knowledge, concerns, and priorities. If provided the opportunity, we have introduced ourselves and the broad objectives of the WECLIFS project at these forums but have attended primarily as observers and have typically not conducted interviews, recorded what is being said, or sought to influence the proceedings by directing the conversation to topics of interest. We have also used KI-INT to include the knowledge, perspectives, and opinions of knowledge holders representing or employed by community and regional organizations. Interviews have usually been semi-structured, conducted in Cree or Inuktitut when appropriate, audio recorded, and transcribed. Though the lines between professional and personal experience are blurred, especially in northern contexts, KI-INT indicates interviews have focused primarily on professional knowledge and organizational perspectives and priorities, whereas CM-INT, as described below, focus primarily on personal experience, knowledge, and practice. An additional method we have employed involves the analysis of community-supplied wildlife (WILD) samples, including parts of animals or plants that have been harvested for food or sampled using non-invasive methods. Typically, researchers have not been present when WILD samples are collected but have financially compensated harvesters for supplying samples and in most cases request additional information about the sample including harvest or collection location and date.
In cases where these methodologies have identified key knowledge gaps and collaborative support to proceed, we have initiated workshops, community interviews, surveys, field research, and participant observations. Workshops (WORK) are purpose-oriented events organized to refine or develop a methodology or to address a research or knowledge transfer objective with a specific group of invited participants. To reduce the research burden, we have attempted to make any proposed workshops synergistic with other planned events (e.g., forums and meetings), but whether they are stand alone or combined event, workshops have been designed as purpose-oriented research or knowledge transfer events with explicit objectives, invited participants, workshop methodologies, and anticipated outcomes. Community member interviews (CM-INT) have been used to learn more about the experience, knowledge, and perspectives of people living in Eeyou Istchee and Nunavik. Interviews have generally been semi-structured, conducted in Cree or Inuktitut when appropriate, audio recorded, and transcribed. Community members have been surveyed as representatives of households, or communities, or target groups like youth, hunters, women, or elders. In practice, the distinction between KI-INT and CM-INT is blurry, and recognition of the intersectionality of people living in the regions and involved in the research has generally enriched knowledge sharing. But we seek to uphold the conceptual and ethical distinction between CM-INT focused primarily on personal experience, knowledge, and perspective, and that asks more from individual community members than KI-INT interviews focused on representative or professional opinion that is more routinely shared as part of normal duties and expectations. Surveys (SURV) have involved sampling of respondents using a structured questionnaire. When proposed, survey methodology includes specifying the population being surveyed, the sampling design, and details of the survey instrument. Field research (FIELD), is used here in an ecological research sense, to describe methodologies that involve researchers travelling onto land or water or by air to measure attributes of the physical environment or local plant or animal species. In this sense, field research has involved establishing survey plots, and, in some cases, the capture and handling of wildlife. Any FIELD methodologies used have included specification of the impacts involved, who will be conducting the research, and the necessary land access, animal use, and environmental impact review and approval. Finally, participant observation (PART) describes a methodology in which researchers participate in the context being observed, using diaries, notes, and memoing to record observations, experiences, and perspectives gained. Typically PART has included understanding by doing, as well as understanding by asking more-experienced participants questions oriented around observed events and outcomes.
A significant innovation that we have realized through this research is the collaborative benefits of graduate students, research project students, and postdoctoral fellows doing internships with partner organizations early in their degree programs. The intern offers their time, skills, and expertise to the host organization and, in return, the intern learns more about the organization, the community or region, and how to work effectively in that context. This restructures the standard researcher-community relationship progression in a manner that is much more likely to lead to relationship, reciprocity, and co-learning (Figure 7).
Figure 7. A common and an alternative approach (right) to research progression and community engagement. A common approach (left) is for the researcher to i) formulate a research focus and proposed approach within the conceptual and physical walls of academia, then ii) seek, often from a distance, community support for the proposed research, then iii) complete the research under time constraints, then iv) return to academic space to analyse, interpret, and write-up the results. An alternate approach (right) is for the researcher to i) begin by spending time in community contributing to the mandate of a local organization, establishing relationships and gaining awareness, then ii) based on these experiences formulate a research focus that addresses academic research gaps and community priorities, then iii) complete the research, iv) consider its academic and community implications as a research and v) collaboratively with the people and organizations involved in the research, then vi) write-up the research. Time to completion is likely to be longer under the alternative approach, but collaboration, reciprocity, and relevance is likely to be enhanced.
Completed WECLIFS internships have typically been 2-3 months in duration, conducted in the offices of the host organization, and focused on outcomes and deliverables identified by the host organization (Table 1).
This internship approach has been successful in situating graduate students and their thesis research in closer alignment with partner organizations and, at the same time, more effectively transferring the knowledge, capacities, and opportunities offered by partner organizations into the training and research environment of graduate students. One student indicated that the internship experience helped them to engage "more closely and directly with research partners and see how they work" and to "deepen my understanding of the issues... across the territory" and "helped contextualise my research". Another trainee indicated the internship helped them "co-develop their research project with community members, and to build their professional networks within the region". Another indicated they were "exposed to co-management practices of arctic wildlife, community consultation, and community-based sampling approaches" and that "by living and learning in a northern community, I learned to be patient... and to be humble in my role and education." Another translated an internship experience into both a community-prioritized thesis project and post-thesis employment with a collaborating organization. This represents a win-win situation for researchers and collaborating organizations. Internship experiences of researchers have, in many cases, progressed into thesis projects and subsequent employment opportunities, including with the organizations that contributed to their training. We believe that internship experiences were among the most impactful opportunities for both our graduate students and the organizations contributing to this collaborative project.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse