Methods & Methodology

This section will outline the chosen methods and methodology that this research was conducted to. It will outline the intentional creation of the symposium and how this event unfolded.

Methodology

In the lead-up to this capstone experience, I anticipated drawing from a variety of methodologies, including two-eyed seeing (Bartlett et al, 2012), appreciative inquiry (Whitney et al. 2019) and love as a methodology (Gallagher, 2018). However, in dialogue with Sara, Kelly and Marisa, it became clear that it was important to lead with a more localized methodology, drawing from traditional practices and knowledge systems. Further, if this capstone was to be truly Indigenous-led, then it was all the more important to seriously question and critique the methodologies that I (a settler of British, French and Scottish ancestry) brought forward through my western educational experiences. As such, the decision was made to proceed with the methodology of Na̱nwaḵola. Na̱nwaḵola is the Kwakwaka̱'wakw practice of “bringing wise peoples together to seek solutions” (personal communication, Sara Child, 2022). I inquired if this practice was similar to appreciative inquiry (the methodology of seeking out what may be working in a system and determining how to amplify and build on what works well). In short, Na̱nwaḵola is not similar to appreciative inquiry. Na̱nwaḵola requires the careful articulation and exploration of the existing challenges without minimizing them in any way. Only then can appropriate solutions be discussed and explored. Another element of Na̱nwaḵola as a methodology was that a solution (or solutions) were only acted on with consensus of the group. Consensus was sought through the symposium itself, and was revisited through the act of all symposium and interview participants reviewing this material prior to its submission to Royal Roads for the completion of the capstone course, or the Indigenous Education Council for the approval of the implementation of the Working Group. The decision to have this work reviewed and approved by symposium and interview participants is also an intentional disruption of traditional research practices, where (western) researchers working with Indigenous peoples would conduct their research and never again return to the peoples they were working with to ensure that the conclusions they drew were accurate, and that the research could benefit anyone beyond the realm of academia.

Preparation & Planning

Initially, I had planned to conduct this research at a different institute, and had done almost all of my preparation and planning geared towards implementing this research process elsewhere. However, in what would be the first of an emerging trend throughout this research experience, I had to trust when intuition led me in a different direction than first anticipated. Preliminary conversations at the initial institute I intended to work with, revealed that the institute was not necessarily poised for change, as ongoing leadership changes, coupled with pandemic-induced burnout did not create an optimal environment for innovation and creativity. Subsequently, while conducting preliminary research at the initial institute, I began a new role in the Office of Indigenous Education at North Island College. I was tasked with reviewing the Working Together Indigenization Plan and aligning it with provincial frameworks and action plans, for reporting purposes. In doing so, it became clear to me that NIC was not only poised for, but actively working towards institutional change that sought out epistemic justice through reconciliation and Indigenization. Cautiously, I presented the idea of having this capstone act as a contributing project towards ongoing objectives to the Executive Director of Indigenous Education, Kelly Shopland. I was grateful that despite the short timelines to conduct this work, it was welcomed and embraced immediately. Kelly connected me with Sara Child and Marisa Bennett, and together the four of us met weekly to determine how this research might best benefit the NIC community and the Indigenous peoples that NIC seeks to serve.

The idea for a symposium to enact Na̱nwaḵola came from Sara Child, and while the pace in which everything needed to happen in order to execute such an event was daunting and at times a little terrifying, it was also exhilarating, and gave little time for nitpicking or overthinking (two of my weaknesses as a student and a researcher). Sara, Kelly, Marisa and myself (with input from Elders who worked with NIC) worked collaboratively to determine the guest list, appropriate location, how to go about inviting everyone, objectives for the symposium, agenda, catering, and so forth. It was important that there were ways for individuals to contribute who were unable to attend the symposium itself, so the option of interviews (either synchronous or asynchronous) were provided as alternatives. Within the symposium itself, it was also prioritized that individuals could contribute in ways that they were comfortable. We discussed the importance of having notepads on every table, so if someone did not feel comfortable speaking out, they could convey and contribute their thoughts through writing as well. Conversations were had surrounding power dynamics, community member involvement and engagement, student and alumni attendance, and more. Discussion with the NIC Research Ethics Board Chair determined that I would not need Ethics approval from this institution, however one was still required for Royal Roads University. The ethical review process, while painfully colonial and rigid, provided insight into all necessary ethical considerations while moving through this research experience.

Symposium Day One

To stay true to the methodology of Na̱nwaḵola, the symposium opened with a discussion around how to best work together to seek solutions to existing problems, facilitated by Marisa Bennett and Sara Child. This led to the creation of the guiding principles, as outlined in the section of the same name. Once there was consensus on how best to work together in a good and respectful way, the participants of the symposium broke into three groups (six people per group, with a facilitator and notetaker present at each group). The purpose of breaking up the larger group into three smaller groups was so that the query into what exactly the challenges were could be a more robust conversation, with more time and space for each participant to speak and contribute then there would be if we had remained in a larger group. There were two questions posed to the three groups, and each group had approximately 40 minutes to discuss each question:

What current ‘roadblocks’ or challenges exist when working with a colonial institute that create barriers to infusing an Indigenous lens and achieving the goals and objectives of the Indigenization Plan?
Where have you experienced overcoming a barrier or roadblock? What happened? What allowed for success?

The three smaller groups reported out to one another at the end of each 40 minute segment, to consider what one another came up with and acknowledge similarities/differences. At the end of this activity, the group came back together and reflected on that experience, adding anything else that came to mind. Once this had concluded, the first day of the symposium concluded, with the ask that everyone take time to reflect and consider what had come up in discussion that day.

Once day one had concluded, Marisa Bennett, Ian Caplette (IEC member representing the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council), Sara Child, Kelly Shopland, myself and the notetakers, Yue-Ching Cheng and Rory Erickson, came together to reflect collectively on the first day of the symposium and determine a path forward for the second day. Reflecting upon the discussion that had occurred, it became clear that the two themes had emerged clearly:

The ‘Indigeniziation’ of existing practices, programs and governance structures was strongly desired but inhibited by the lack of capacity knowledge keepers both employed at the institute and within surrounding communities. Further, existing policies and structures held far too much rigidity to allow for the necessary creativity and innovation required to truly ‘Indigenize’ such spaces.
‘Indigenous-led education’ was entirely different then ‘Indigenization’, and was a lesser known priority, especially to settler faculty and staff. However the challenges to Indigenous-led education were parallel to that of ‘Indigenization’.

It was determined that the group would need to work together for the entirety of day two, and there would need to be in-depth conversation regarding seeking solutions to the two different but related themes.

Symposium Day Two

The second day of the symposium began with breakfast and casual conversation allowing for the deepening of relationships. This led into a discussion allowing space for any reflections or thoughts that had emerged in our time apart. It was beautiful to hear about the many discussions that had occurred in the homes of our participants with their families and loved ones about the topics presented during the first day. It was a powerful reminder that learning took place with and through generations and relationships, a theme that you will see echoed in solution #5, in the solutions section. Next, the identified themes were outlined for participants to consider, and a robust dialogue was had surrounding “pie-in-the-sky” envisioning of both the Indigenization of existing practices, and Indigenous-led education. This conversation evolved to hone in on specific and immediate ‘low hanging fruit’ solutions that could be enacted in order to step towards the “higher hanging fruit” solutions, such as an Indigenous led education center, as outlined in solution #5. Prior to breaking for lunch, participants were asked to consider the concept of a committee, or working group, as a way in which to focus energy towards this work moving forward. This idea came forward the night prior during the facilitator reflections, as guided by the Working Together Indigenization Plan goal of an ‘Indigenous curriculum sub-committee, and as guided by the exploration into best practices through the literature review. Many institutes around the world working towards decolonization put in place committees or councils to guide reconciliatory work.

After a fruitful lunch hour with rich conversations and connections, the group reconvened to discuss the concept of a committee. Here, everything from wording (a ‘working group’ was determined the best title, as it implied that action was being taken, rather than spoken about) to composition, to scope of work and integration with existing practices at the institute was discussed in depth. The group worked collaboratively to expand on one another’s ideas, consider different angles or perspectives on topics, and move towards a solution that would address the challenges outlined in the first day. Once energy began to wane, the group determined consensus on the solutions drawn up and settled into a reflective activity of sharing their takeaways from this time together. This last activity allowed me to understand how impactful the practice of Na̱nwaḵola can be. The coming together of wise peoples to share ideas and seek solutions had allowed for each individual’s heart and mind to be touched and shaped by this experience. The change of systems begins with the changing of hearts and minds of the individuals that comprise those systems (as echoed in solution #4), and it was breathtaking to hear how each participant had been influenced through this experience.

Interviews

I conducted one asynchronous interview (I sent the questions through email to a participant, who responded via email) and four interviews through the video conferencing app, BlueJeans. Interviews began with relationship building, and loosely followed a set of predetermined questions. However, the most robust dialogue often occurred when interview participants ventured ‘off-script’ and into stories or experiences they had relating to epistemic justice, or lack-there-of. Many interview participants expressed sadness over not being able to attend the symposium, in recognition that so much potent connection and collaboration can occur when a group of like-minded folks come together with the intent to improve existing systems. Selfishly, I found the interviews an enlightening one-on-one experience in which I could deep-dive into individual perspectives - an element that was less accessible at the symposium itself. Without any prompting, near identical research findings came from the symposium and the interviews. Each interview left me reviewing the symposium data as it coincided with the perspectives of the interview participant, and reveling over every participant’s desire to improve existing systems for the benefit of all.

Reflections on the Process

This research project worked to reflect an anti-oppressive research approach, as outlined by Strega & Brown (2015). This dictated that the research process would be emergent and non-linear, with a focus on relationships and the ‘doing’ rather than the ‘final product’ (p. 22). Strega & Brown also outline how the research should act as the change itself, not simply the end-product to dictate recommended change. I believe that the symposium accomplished this in ways that cannot be quantitatively measured. As an interview participant stated “it is our choice to be changed by our experiences, and to let the stories of others change us” (Interview participant, 2022). I have been irrevocably changed by both the symposium and interview experiences. I believe, through the final thoughts shared by each symposium participant, that each participant was also changed by this experience, and that their individual actions will cumulate into the recommended changes outlined in the recommendations section of this website.