CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Indigenous Health, Education, and RightsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsIndigenous Cultures and History

Bridging Parallel Rows: Epistemic Difference and Relational Accountability in Cross-Cultural Research

Open access
Latulippe, Nicole·2015·International Indigenous Policy Journal
DOI 10.18584/iipj.2015.6.2.7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To what extent are non-Indigenous researchers invited to engage the knowledges of Indigenous peoples? For those working within a western paradigm, what is an ethical approach to traditional knowledge (TK) research? While these questions are not openly addressed in the burgeoning literature on TK, scholarship on Indigenous research methodologies provides guidance. Reflexive self-study - what Margaret Kovach calls researcher preparation - subtends an ethical approach. It makes relational, contextual, and mutually beneficial research possible. In my work on contested fisheries knowledge and decision-making systems in Ontario, Canada, a treaty perspective orients my mixed methodological approach. It reflects my relationships to Indigenous lands, peoples, and histories, and enables an ethical space of engagement through which relational accountability and respect for epistemic difference can be realized.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18584/iipj.2015.6.2.7

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using all and the best tools and knowledge available in fisheries science would serve decolonial and reconciliatory efforts that help rectify uneven power relations, knowledge inequalities, and other racially linked and unjust dynamics in fisheries.

    “Not only would it behove fisheries scientists to use all and the best tools and knowledge available at this time of crisis, irrespective of their origin and the perceived objectivity and superiority of Western scientific approaches (TallBear, 2014), but this would importantly serve decolonial and reconciliatory efforts that help rectify uneven power relations, knowledge inequalities, and other ra”

    From “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management (2021) · cites this paper as Latulippe, 2015

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The two-row wampum has been suggested as a model or conceptual framework for non-interference in cross-cultural research by non-Native scholars.

    “and as a model or conceptual framework for non-interference in cross-cultural research by non-Native scholars (see Evering, 2016; Sweeny, 2014; Latulippe, 2015).”

    From Relational Systems Thinking: That's How Change is Going to Come, From Our Earth Mother (2021) · cites this paper as Latulippe, 2015

    In “Respecting and Bridging Epistemic Difference” (page unavailable), Latulippe explicitly uses the Two Row Wampum as a conceptual framework for cross-cultural research that respects distinct knowledge systems. But the section also rejects mutual isolation and emphasizes interaction, assistance, and bridging work, so describing it simply as a model for non-interference misses a central part of the framework. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Conceptual frameworks are reflective of the knowledge one privileges, and their visualization can guide important research choices.

    “Conceptual frameworks are reflective of the knowledge one privileges (Kovach, 2010), and their visualization can guide important research choices (Latulippe, 2015).”

    From “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management (2021) · cites this paper as Latulippe, 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Ahmed, S. (2004). Declarations of Whiteness: The non-performativity of anti-racism. Borderlands E- Journal, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm
  2. Baldwin, A., Kobayashi, A., & Cameron, L. (2012). Rethinking the Great White North. Race, nature and the historical geographies of Whiteness in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
  3. Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology (3 rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  4. Borrows, J. (1997). Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian legal history, and self- government. In M. Asch (Ed.), Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada: Essays on law, equity, and respect for difference (pp. 155-172). Vancouver: UBC Press.
  5. Bowie, R. (2013). Indigenous self-governance and the deployment of knowledge in collaborative environmental management in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 47(1), 91-121.
  6. Cairns, A. (2000). Citizens plus: Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. Vancouver: UBC Press.
  7. Canada keeps forgetting First Nations. (2012, January/February). Anishinabek News, 24(1), 1. Retrieved from http://www.anishinabek.ca/download/news/2012-1.pdf
  8. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52). Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (S.C. 1999, c. 33). Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Research involving First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples of Canada (chapter 9). In Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (pp. 105-134). Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/archives/tcps2-eptc2-2010/Default/ Chiefs of Ontario. (2006). Final submission to the Ipperwash Inquiry Part II. Retrieved from http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/closing_submissions/pdf/Chi efsOfOntario_ClosingSubmissions-II.pdf
  9. Coombes, B., Johnson, J., Howitt, R. (2012). Indigenous geographies: Mere resource conflicts? The complexities of Indigenous land and environmental claims. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 810-821.
  10. Corbiere, A. (2013). "Their own forms of which they take the most notice": Diplomatic metaphors and symbolism on wampum belts. In A. Corbiere, M. Corbiere, D. McGregor, & C. Migwans (Eds.), Anishinaabewin Niiwin: Four rising winds (pp. 47-64). M'Chigeeng, ON: Ojibwe Cultural Foundation.
  11. Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skin, White masks. Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  12. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  13. Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193-203.
  14. Geniusz, W. (2009). Our knowledge is not primitive: Decolonizing botanical Anishinaabe teachings. New York: Syracuse University Press.
  15. Graham, M. (2002). Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of Aboriginal worldviews. In R. Foltz (Ed.), Worldviews, religion, and the environment (pp. 89-96). California: Wadsworth.
  16. Hallenbeck, J. (2015). Returning to the water to enact a treaty relationship: The Two Row Wampum renewal campaign. Settler Colonial Studies. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2014.1000909 · DOI
  17. Harris, C. (2004). How did colonialism dispossess? Comments from an edge of empire. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(1), 165-182.
  18. Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 34.
  19. Howitt, R., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2006). Rethinking the building blocks: Ontological pluralism and the idea of 'management'. Geografiska Annaler B, 88(3), 323-335. Indians' right to hunt game set for court: Game laws, Robinson Treaty in conflict in case listed for hearing April 22. (1938, April 13). North Bay Nugget, North Bay, ON.
  20. Jankie, D. (2004). "Tell me who you are": Problematizing the construction and positionalities of "insider"/"outsider" of a "Native" ethnographer in a postcolonial context. In K. Mutua, & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Critical personal narratives (pp. 87-106). New York: State University of New York Press.
  21. Johnson, M. (Ed.). (1992). Lore: Capturing traditional environmental knowledge. Retrieved from http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/10975/13/IDL-10975.pdf
  22. Koenig, E. (2005). Cultures and ecologies : A Native fishing conflict on the Saugeen-Bruce Peninsula. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  23. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies. Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  24. Kuokkanan, R. (2007). Reshaping the university: Responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. Vancouver: UBC Press.
  25. Lawrence, B. (2003). Gender, race and the regulation of Native identity in Canada and the United States. Hypatia, 18(2), 3-31.
  26. Lawrence, B. (2012). Fractured homeland. Federal recognition and Algonquin identity in Ontario. Vancouver: UBC Press.
  27. Leatherdale, M. (2010). Nipissing from Brule to Booth (2 nd ed.). Victoria: Trafford.
  28. Linden, S. (2007). Policy Analysis. Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry (vol. 2). Retrieved from: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/
  29. Mane, J. (2009). Kaupapa Maōri: A community approach. MAI Review, 3(1), 1-9.
  30. Mansvelt, J., & Berg, L. (2005). Writing geographies, constructing geographic knowledges. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography (2 nd ed., pp. 333-355). Canada: Oxford University Press.
  31. Martin, K., & Miraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, ways of being and ways of doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous re-search and Indigenist research. Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203-214.
  32. McGregor, D. (2004b). Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable development: Towards coexistence. In M. Blaser, H. Feit, & G. McRae (Eds.), In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization (pp. 72-91). New York: Zed Books.
  33. McGregor, D. (2009). Linking traditional knowledge and environmental practice in Ontario. Journal of Canadian Studies, 43(3), 69-100.
  34. Menzies, C. (Ed.). (2006). Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  35. Menzies, C., & Butler, C. (2006). Understanding ecological knowledge. In C. Menzies (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management (pp. 1-20). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  36. Mutua, K., & Swadener, B. (2004). Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Critical personal narratives. New York: State University of New York Press.
  37. Reo, N. (2011). The importance of belief systems in traditional ecological knowledge initiatives. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2(4), 1-4.
  38. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). (1996). Lands and resources (vol. 2). Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
  39. Shackeroff, J., & Campbell, L. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge in conservation research: Problems and prospects for their constructive engagement. Conservation and Society, 5(3), 343-360.
  40. Shaw, W., Herman, R., & Dobbs, R. (2006). Encountering Indigeneity: Re-imagining and decolonizing geography. Geografiska Annaler B. Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography, 88(3), 267-276.
  41. Smith, A. (2010). Conquest: Sexual violence and American Indian genocide. Brooklyn, N.Y.: South End Press.
  42. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies. Research and Indigenous peoples (2 nd ed.). London: Zed Books. Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29).
  43. Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409-428.
  44. Turner, D. (2006). This is not a peace pipe: Towards a critical Indigenous philosophy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  45. Turner, N., Boelscher Ignace, M., & Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of Aboriginal peoples in British Colombia. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1275-1287.
  46. Union of Ontario Indians (UOI). (2014). Maadhookiiwin (Sharing). Treaty Learning Centre Symposium: Final Report. Author: North Bay.
  47. Usher, P. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic, 53(2), 183-193.
  48. Weber-Pillwax, C. (2001). Oral conference presentation. Coming to an understanding: A panel presentation. What is Indigenous research? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 166- 174.
  49. White, G. (2006). Cultures in collision: Traditional knowledge and Euro-Canadian governance processes in northern land-claim boards. Arctic, 59(4), 401-414.
  50. Wiber, M., & Milley, C. (2007). After Marshall: Implementation of Aboriginal fishing rights in Atlantic Canada. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 55, 163-186.
  51. Wilson, S. (2012, January 17). Indigenous research: A community conversation with Shawn Wilson. Symposium hosted by Ryerson University Aboriginal Student Services, Toronto, Ontario.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Latulippe, N.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Latulippe, Nicole
ORCID
Latulippe, Nicole
Venue
International Indigenous Policy Journal
Publisher
University of Western Ontario, Western Libraries
Published
2015-05-11
Volume
6
Issue
2
ISSN
1916-5781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18584/iipj.2015.6.2.7
OpenAlex
W777927258
Cited by
82
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Indigenous Policy Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
Keywords
Indigenous research methodologies, traditional knowledge, epistemic difference, relational accountability, researcher preparation, reflexivity, research ethics, Indigenous decision-making, non-Indigenous researchers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review