Inawendiwin and Relational Accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: the Crux of the Biscuit

Inawendiwin and Relational Accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: The Crux of the Biscuit

Author: Nicholas J. Reo

Source: Journal of Ethnobiology, 39(1) : 65-75

Published By: Society of Ethnobiology

URL: https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.65

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.

Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 03 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Dartmouth College Journal of Ethnobiology 2019 39(1): 65–75

Inawendiwin and Relational Accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: The Crux of the Biscuit

Nicholas J. Reo1

Abstract. Researchers working with Indigenous nations often recognize the need to build respectful relationships with nation representatives, but too often assume that everyone has the same understandings of respect and accountability. Relational accountability, an ethical guideline for conducting research with Indigenous nation partners, references the kincentric beliefs among many Indigenous Peoples. It implies that researchers are responsible for nurturing honorable relationships with community collaborators and are accountable to the entirety of the community in which they work, potentially including collaborators’ more-than-human network of relations. This research examines relational accountability in ethnobiology and other research contexts, with a focus on work within Anishnaabe territories. Anishnaabe inawendiwin, a teaching about kinship, provides a path for centering research ethics and praxis in Anishnaabe ways of knowing and being. Anishnaabe inawendiwin urges us to remain committed to Indigenous nation partners regardless of budgets and beyond research grant timelines; to attend to accountabilities towards more-than-human communities; to foster loving, personal relationships with research partners; and to involve youth genuinely in the partnerships. Keywords: mino-bimaadiziwin, Anishnaabe studies, Indigenous research methods, kinship

Opening Thoughts ties in ethical and respectful ways, Native Academic communities are increas- Hawaiian geographer Renee Paulani Louis ingly acknowledging that, when working in (2007) reviewed Indigenous research Indigenous territories, researchers need to methodologies and identified four over- be highly engaged and strive for respectful arching principles: relational accountabil- and committed partnerships with Indige- ity, respectful representation, reciprocal nous nations and communities (Rundstrom appropriation, and rights and regulation. and Deur 1999; Tallbear 2014). Partnerships These principles are general guides for of this nature are built upon honorable and ethical research, but to put them into often deeply personal relationships (Fox action, they need to be informed by et al. 2017; Tallbear 2014). However, the community-specific ethics, protocols, and nature of honorable relationships (e.g., understandings. trustworthy, honest, loving, etc.) is deter- In this contribution, I rely on my cultural mined in culturally specific ways and is background and the lessons I have learned rooted in a given community’s own ethical from my research partners to unpack one of protocols and traditions. Ultimately, the Louis’ four principles, relational account- communities with which I have the priv- ability, in a culturally-specific way. I am ilege to work need to determine whether Anishnaabe (Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chip- our relationships are honorable and these pewa Indians), and most of my research evaluations are distinct from research ethics partnerships have been with various Anish- assessments by institutional review boards. naabe nations in the Great Lakes region of In her attempt to provide guidance the United States and Canada. To explore for working with Indigenous communi- this research principle and its ethical

1Dartmouth College, Native American Studies and Environmental Studies programs, 37 North Main Street, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA ([email protected])

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 03 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Dartmouth College 66 Reo

context, I present success stories and lessons tific community’s record of unethical and learned from my various research partner- unchecked research practices in Indigenous ships in Anishnaabe territories, reflect on territories (Hoover 2017; Smith 2013). I am my perspective as an Anishnaabe scholar, Anishnaabe, but if I approach an Indigenous and discuss these examples and perspec- nation with a research idea or proposal, tives in light of Indigenous (more pointedly, they see me as a scientist and an academic Anishnaabe) studies and ethnobiologi- first, and an Indigenous person second. This cal literature. Through this discussion and means that I carry the baggage of any uneth- presentation of examples, I hope to provide ical or dishonorable research practices that tangible insights into human-environment the community has historically experi- research and the study of environmental enced. One of the more well-known cases knowledge in Anishnaabe cultural and of unethical practices is a relatively recent political contexts. incident from the University of Arizona, where blood samples collected from Hava- Relational Accountability supai Tribal community members were used Relational accountability references the for non-consensual genetic research (Mello “kincentric” (Salmón 2000) beliefs among and Wolf 2010). Many other, less abhorrent many Indigenous Peoples, which holds examples have been discussed, including that people are dependent on and related social anthropologist Paul Sillitoe’s (2015) to everything and everyone around them, critique of particular forms of participant including air, water, rocks, plants, animals, observation ethnography culminating in and so-called “supernatural” beings (Louis publications that Indigenous community 2007). It implies that, as a researcher, I “subjects” regard as detached from their am not only responsible for nurturing and realities. maintaining relationships with my specific Collectively, the relationship between community collaborators, but I am also the academic community and Indigenous accountable to entire communities where groups has, for generations, been pater- I work (Steinhauer 2002; Wilson 2001; nalistic and Indigenous ways of knowing Wilson and Wilson 1998). This potentially have not fully been valued or respected includes my collaborators’ non-human (Castleden et al. 2017). Past experiences network of relations. with universities can lead Indigenous The principle of relational account- communities to believe that all research is ability emerged primarily as an Indigenous designed to benefit academics, not commu- counternarrative that questions extractive nity members (Smith 2013). As a result, modes of research. As an Anishnaabe communities are left feeling “researched to scholar who does community-oriented death” (Hoover 2017:15). research, the principle makes sense and In part because of the skepticism feels right to me. Nevertheless, it is not communities feel about academic research, always clear who I am accountable to in forging relationships is not quick or easy the context of research relationships with work. It requires spending a lot of time Indigenous nations. In this section of the together. In my research partnerships, we paper, I provide some context that helps make a lot of space for personal conver- explain why relational accountability sations about things other than research. matters and why it is not always a simple We make space for going beyond the rigid research principle to enact. fieldwork itinerary and, as such, some of the It is important to recognize that richest learning opportunities are the most Indigenous People often view university spontaneous ones. We participate fully in researchers skeptically because of the scien- tribal cultural protocols when invited to do

Journal of Ethnobiology 2019 39(1): 65–75 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 03 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Dartmouth College The Crux of the Biscuit 67

so. And when I fail to participate in these conducted with Indigenous nations slower, relational processes, it can cause should be carried out in a manner which fledgling projects to flounder. is respectful and ethically sound from the Having good intentions about my perspective of the Indigenous Peoples research relationships is not sufficient. we work with. This is a seemingly simple Even in instances when researchers have point, but it is easily overlooked and much every intention of honoring and valuing research with Indigenous Peoples fails this Indigenous collaborators, good intentions basic test (Smith 2013). As researchers, we do not always lead to respectful actions. As are trained to conduct ourselves in ethical geographer Jay Johnson and his co-authors ways, but this training is most commonly (2016:3) remind us, “In engaging in based on the ethics of Western science dialogue with Indigenous sciences, scien- and redefines our Indigenous partners into tists cannot skip to the end-point imaginary “human subjects” or “key informants” of of a dialogue of equals. We have to learn to our research. listen and to hear.” Within ethnobiology, the ethical stan- Questions about research relationships dards that guide relationships between with Indigenous nations are simultaneously researchers and community or Indigenous ethical and political. To geographer Robert nation partners have changed over the Rundstrom and ethnobotanist Doug Deur decades and much of the field now embraces (1999), research ethics are a contextual and the principle of relational accountabil- relational matter that require deep consid- ity, although typically without using this eration of the social relationships shaping specific term (Bannister et al. 2009; Hardi- interactions among community and univer- son and Bannister 2011). Around the 1990s, sity research partners. A key aspect of this many ethnobiologists recognized we could relationality is how we position ourselves no longer “indulge our intellectual curi- vis-à-vis community partners, and this posi- osity however and wherever we pleased” tionality reflects deeply entrenched power (Hunn 2007:7). Collaborative approaches relations. Kim Tallbear (2014:2) discusses and co-production of knowledge are her research process as seeking out and increasingly common aspirations in the articulating shared goals and desires while field. Researchers like Iain Davidson-Hunt staying engaged in critical conversation and and R. Michael O’Flaherty (2007) are producing new knowledge and insights. blurring the lines between research rela- She describes her positionality as “stand- tionships and research outcomes via ing with” as opposed to “reaching out” or place-based learning communities and “giving back,” which “sounds more akin to dialogic networks where research proto- standing on two sides of a boundary that cols are seen as site-specific expressions parties view as pretty much set.” To help of relationship building processes. One of equilibrate the paternalistic and colonial the main principles that guides Amadeo history of university-Indigenous relations, Rea’s influential vision of ethnobiology is Castelden and colleagues (2017:1) suggest, the idea that “ethnobiological research is “[university researchers] have to take a founded on mutually respectful, trusting backseat and abandon the arrogance of relationships between the ethnobiologist expertise.” Sillitoe (2015:24) reiterates, “it and the descendent communities” (Lepof- is time we sought to give an equal hear- sky and Feeney 2013:47). ing to other voices and views. We need to The evolution of early anthropolog- embark on a journey together.” ical practices and university-community Renee Pualani Louis (2007) argues that research partnerships represented a para- research on Indigenous issues and research digm shift within the field of ethnobiology

(Hunn 2007). Ethnobiologists are now enous knowledge to flow and to grow” contemplating new philosophical ques- (Goodyear-Ka'o- pua 2013:141). tions concerning the relationship between An important aspect of clearing episte- ontology and epistemology in ethnobiolog- mological space for Indigenous knowledge ical research (Daly et al. 2016; Fowler and in our work is to cultivate honorable and Herron 2018). I argue that continuing to loving relationships with our Indigenous work on Indigenous community-university nation partners. In the following section, research relationships, as the discipline I think through Anishnaabe understand- has done for the past several decades, ings of relational accountability and how will provide more contextual footing and these Anishnaabe teachings can help foster advance the latest philosophical discus- authentic research partnerships and create sions in ethnobiology concerning ontology, space for Indigenous knowledge “to flow epistemology, and the ways ethnobiologists and to grow.” engage Indigenous environmental knowledge. Inawendiwin Researchers in and beyond ethnobiol- The principle of relational accountabil- ogy have a keen interest in understanding ity relates directly to Anishnaabe teachings the nature of Indigenous environmental of inawendiwin (relating): knowledge. Despite some strides, research- Anishinaabe enawendawin1 is our ers have not made as much progress as way of relating to each other and to we would like in this conceptual arena; all of Creation. It is an all-inclusive I believe this is because we have been relationship that honours the intercon- too focused on trying to understand what nectedness of all our relations, and Indigenous knowledge is rather than partic- recognizes and honours the human ipating in the relationships that are the place and responsibility within the foundation of Indigenous ways of knowing family of Creation. (Seven Generations and being. Several Indigenous scholars, Education Institute 2015) including Deb McGregor, Kyle Whyte, Dale Turner, Dan Longboat, and Robin Anishnaabe inawendiwin is a way of Kimmerer, have noted for over 15 years relating to spirit and to one another that that the point of Indigenous knowledge is honors the interconnectedness of all our not understanding ecological relationships, relations—kina enwemgik. Relationships but participating in and tending to relation- based in inawendiwin teachings are respect- ships—with plants, animals, mountains, ful of the individual, as well as the integrity waters, and with one another. of the collective. Such relationships are When researchers focus their attention “personal, honest, caring, responsive and on building and maintaining relationships, sharing, and, built upon our identity with the connection between ontology and and connection to spirit, land, environment epistemology in ethnobiology becomes and all of creation” (Seven Generations more clear. Rather than pondering what Education Institute 2015). plant ontologies might look like, we can Cree scholar Shawn Wilson explains speak to plants. Whether or not as individ- that within Indigenous paradigms, knowl- ual researchers we are ready to speak and edge is always relational. Knowledge is listen to plants (or animals) directly in our something that emerges from, and is shared work, we can set up our research collabo- among, all of creation and the cosmos rations, professional meetings, and classes (Wilson 2001). Knowledge is not created in ways that make room for and value Indi- or owned by individuals. Relational knowl- geneity, that is, to “clear and reclaim the edge comes out of the dense webs of epistemological space that allows Indig- connections that exist between humans,

more-than-human beings, lands, and be described with the term, bwaajwewin. waters, in specific places around the globe. Through visiting, I find people are willing Relational knowledge is alive and it is to discuss community needs and priorities, animate. In this sense, as Anishnaabe geog- which allows me to begin the process of rapher Deb McGregor (2009) points out, figuring out where my skills might fit in and environmental knowledge is not so much to identify systems of accountability. an understanding of the web of ecological In addition to bwaajwewin, Tribal or relationships, it is the relationships them- Band councils and Indigenous research selves. Thinking of knowledge in this way review boards can help us determine recasts intellectual pursuits and “knowl- specific plans or strategies for enacting edge production” in a way that pushes ego research principles (Louis 2007), including out and creates space for humility. John relational accountability, but especially the Mohawk articulates this from his perspec- principle of rights and regulation concern- tive as a Seneca man: ing data ownership and sovereignty. While this is a time-intensive process, co-creating An individual is not smart, according thoughtful plans and protocols with a to our culture. An individual is merely group of elected or appointed officials is an lucky to be a part of a system that has important starting place for many research intelligence that happens to reside partnerships. in them. In other words, be humble I learned the hard way that working about this always. The real intelligence with a Nation’s Tribal or Band council is isn’t the property of an individual an important process, even if you are an corporation-the real intelligence is the Indigenous scholar working in your home property of the universe itself. (Mohawk community or in an Indigenous nation you 2010:277) have worked with in the past. A few years ago, while initiating a new research proj- Accountability to Indigenous ect with a community with whom I had Communities worked in the past, I skipped the critical Indigenous communities are the only process of communication with the Tribal entities that can assess the potential for Council and nearly ended the research harm in a research proposal involving endeavor before it began. I took for granted those communities (Tallbear 2014). As that I had community approval because I such, relational accountability begins first had worked with this Tribe before, because and foremost with the people of the nation I was already close with the Tribal staff or community with whom I am working. I with whom I was working, and because we am accountable to everyone and need to were planning the research project together ensure no harm is done to any individu- for over a year. We received funding from als or the community in its entirety. Since a university sponsor who did not require researchers cannot connect with every or ask for a letter from the Tribal Council. community member, we rely on key indi- I arrived in the community in late summer viduals and groups who have their finger with a group of Indigenous collaborators on the pulse of the community to help from other Indigenous Nations. We were develop and approve research proposals. there to exchange ideas, learn from one What has worked best for me is to find another, and visit the territories of the host knowledgeable people in the community Tribe. A few elected Tribal officials pulled (e.g., Elders or environmental managers) me aside before our first meal together in who are willing to spend time with me and their territories and asked, “Why have we visit without an agenda. In the Anishnaabe not heard about this research project before language, the act of visiting this way could this week? You know better. You need to run

this sort of thing by us as a proposal well in that our research and work with commu- advance of applying for grant funding.” nities must involve large budgets and be I was caught off guard by my own paid for by outside groups. Ethnoecologist actions. I had broken a golden rule for Andrew Miller (First Nations University of working respectfully and honorably in Canada) expressed this same sentiment Indigenous territories. In my haste to pull in a question and answer session at the this project together, I assumed the Tribal 2017 Society of Ethnobiology meeting in Council would know about and approve Montreal, Quebec, inspiring me to genu- of our plans. I apologized profusely, took inely rethink my research priorities and full responsibility, and the Tribal leaders commitments. responded with generosity and grace. The embarrassment I felt over my actions has Accountability to More-than-Human stuck with me and will certainly prevent Persons me from making this same mistake in the Considering Anishnaabe inawendiwin future. in the context of research practice moti- A second lesson I have learned about vates me to rethink rights, responsibilities, relational accountability through my and accountability within my research own mistakes is the importance of being endeavors. If I take seriously the idea of committed and responsible to communities relational knowledge, plants and animals regardless of funding. I worked with a tribal suddenly have the right to a consent college (Bay Mills Community College) on process. I find some guidance down this a variety of partnerships for close to ten path from Potawatomi ethnobiologist Robin years. After our working relationship was Kimmerer (2013), who describes Anish- interrupted for a couple of years, I tried to naabe ethics of an “honorable harvest” reinitiate a new collaboration through the that include asking permission and listen- co-development of a grant proposal. We ing for answers before gathering any of developed a strong proposal for a highly the gifts of the Earth. Similarly, Arquette et competitive program, but it was not funded. al. (2004:333) describe how the Haude- We refocused our proposal and submitted nosaunee Ohen:ton Karihwatehkwen, or it to another funding program, but were Thanksgiving Address, provides the basis met with a second rejection. This second for their environmental health research and rejection happened in 2014, and to date an associated reconciliation process, by we have not discussed next steps or figured placing human beings “firmly in an inter- out how we might accomplish some of the dependent coequal relationship with what objectives in the absence of grant funding. we know as other ‘nations’—these being I let our conversation wane but, in hind- the various elements of creation that others sight, some of the most important objectives think of as separate species, natural forces that we outlined in our proposal could have and phenomena.” been addressed without a large budget and While working with an all-Anishnaabe without asking staff from the College to research team in 2011, we began our take on additional responsibilities. research partnership with a pipe ceremony If I want to maintain a relationship to gain spiritual guidance on the direction of with this Tribal institution, inawendiwin our work. This was intuitive to us, but using teachings hold that I need to be commit- Indigenous protocols within a mixed (Indig- ted and take responsibility for working on enous/non-Indigenous) research team is a important issues and projects regardless of more complicated endeavor. Some Indige- funding. Leanne Simpson (2008:77) warns nous researchers and community members that we need to confront and break free will not want to involve non-Indigenous from the “funding mentality,” which holds partners in their spiritual practices. Not all

non-Indigenous research partners have the and our other relations prior to initiating desire or make the time to participate in research within their homelands. I engage a community partner’s cultural protocols. in this practice at a most basic level regu- Time constraints tied to busy field seasons, larly, for instance talking to local spirits and tight budgets, and funding timelines create asking permission before entering a forest obstacles for academic partners to partici- or wetland I am studying. But only recently pate in cultural activities that are unlikely to have I begun to see these conversations as be included in their list of research objec- consent processes that weweni bzindan tives (Castleden et al. 2012; Coombes et al. (require deep listening), as opposed to acts 2014; Mulrennan et al. 2012). of gratitude and propitiation. Would miki- Despite these constraints, I have naak (Eastern snapping turtle, Chelydra successfully relied on Anishnaabe proto- serpentina) be willing to give feedback on cols in my work within multi-cultural my research ideas? Would giizhik (North- research teams. The spirits consulted in our ern white cedar, Thuja occidentalis) review 2011 ceremony made us all aware of an the key concepts or framing for my next important blind spot in our research, the manuscript? Perhaps even better questions need to thoroughly involve youth in our are, “how are these relatives influencing work which, for me, affirmed the value and my work already” and “how could I engage power of including ceremony in research. more conscientiously in a dialogue with Working with my own community (Sault these and other relatives about the focus or Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians) and a particularities of my work?” neighboring community (Bay Mills Indian In our research on an introduced, Community) in the Upper Peninsula of hybrid cattail, we have grappled with the Michigan, we held a three-day workshop ethics of our work and how to balance where members of the Bay Mills commu- ethical dimensions with more tangible nity shared some of their knowledge about research objectives. But, by bringing in our naaknaash (broadleaf cattail, Typha lati- non-human partners, we have gained new folia) to help us sort out our collective and insightful perspectives. For example, concerns and relationship to a newly we regard zhashkoonh (muskrat, Ondatra introduced cattail species (Typha x glauca) zibethicus) as our teacher because of his that has transformed wetland communities extensive knowledge and use of cattails within the Great Lakes region. Following and coastal marshes. We are experimen- Anishnaabe protocol, we opened and tally constructing open water habitat within closed this workshop with ceremony. dense colonies of hybrid cattail, mimicking These cultural protocols set a tone for the the open water habitats created by zhash- workshop where no one needed to be “the koonh. We wonder if zhashkoonh-like open expert” and everyone was open to teaching water channels could affect biodiversity and learning. One of the main purposes of measures within “invaded” wetlands, simi- our ceremonies was to speak to the cattail lar to what is found in zhashkoonh habitat and express our intentions and ask permis- in uninvaded coastal wetlands. Basing our sion to harvest and cook cattail in our experimental design on observations of meeting. zhashkoonh is one small way to involve Indigenous community members are non-human relations in our research, but I actively involved in all phases of our research am motivated to engage more deeply in the projects; in the future, I would like to see teachings of this animal relative. This will us engage more-than-human community involve spending a lot more time learning members in all phases as well. I envision from muskrat and learning from Anish- not only asking permission but engaging in naabe people who know muskrat best, a dialogue with plant and animal nations including, for example, trappers.

Anishnaabe inawendiwin teachings are think about ourselves, our relationships, our cause for reflection and to rethink the roles Nations, and our stories as verbs and as nouns within research teams and how they are (Johnston 2013)—as “vessels of life” and composed. Animals can become our teach- acts of creation and “relationship-making” ers and rivers can be our collaborators and (Sinclair 2013:83). The act of storytelling co-authors. As Haudenosaunee researchers and relationship-making in research are Arquette et al. (2004) explain, other animal acts of love. These acts both maintain us nations are our original teachers and have and re-create us at the same time. Seen in taught humans about medicine, about how this light, our collaborations and knowl- to hunt and store food, and how to survive. edge creation efforts become highly creative They continue to teach us and are sources acts in the most generative sense. They are of emotional and spiritual strength. When loving and sacred acts. Sean Wilson (2008) we recognize more-than-human beings as compels us to compare this creative process part of our web of relations (or the web of relationship building to research traditions of relations recognized by our Indigenous that encourage us to break down and dissect research partners) and as our teachers, it is relationships in order to understand them. It no longer appropriate to think of them as is not unreasonable for us to think of loving “study subjects.” Such an orientation forces emotional commitments in our research— us to re-evaluate research terminology biologists often love the plants and animals and recognize that terms, such as “study they so intimately study. Ornithologists can subject,” “study system,” and “research exhibit deep love and reverence for birds protocol,” can take on different meaning (e.g., see works by Lars Pomara and Allan for our collaborators or may be irrelevant. Mee). Bryologists can love and defend their mosses (Kimmerer 2003). Love and Personal Relationships The personal relationships we develop Research based in Anishnaabe with research partners can be powerful inawendiwin is about cultivating and nurtur- and last a lifetime. I remember the first ing relationships. Collaborators spend time time a research partner, now a very close together practicing the art of bwaajwewin. friend, told me “I love you.” It was at We eat, we laugh, we contemplate, we the end of a week of intense “fieldwork” learn, we teach, and we write. I concur (bwaajwewin-focused interactions where with Tallbear (2014), who says we need to we were sharing stories and knowledge regard the research process itself, includ- about river restoration). Our group was ing the visiting and relationship building, parting ways, with half of us headed to the as a primary outcome. She notes, “it is airport and the other half headed fishing also helpful to think creatively about the for a week. I felt the same as when I say research process as a relationship-building goodbye to my aunts, uncles, and cousins process, as a professional networking at the end of a family dinner or holiday process with colleagues (not “subjects”), as feast. We say, “I love you” and share a an opportunity for conversation and sharing kiss before leaving. My friend and collab- of knowledge, not simply data gathering” orator Frank did just that and, in doing so, (Tallbear 2014:2). he was saying that we are family. As my In their contributions to a compilation half of the group pulled out of the park- entitled Centering Anishnaabeg Studies, ing lot, Frank chased after our van on foot, Anishnaabe writers Basil Johnston (2013) and waving at us and saying, “I love you guys!” Niigaanwewidam Sinclair (2013) discuss This moment and our interactions since love as a process and outcome of Anish- define, for me, the possibilities of deep naabek storytelling, an intellectual tradition and personal relationships that can emerge and form of research. They encourage us to from inawendiwin-oriented research.

Youth and Intergeneration Relationships to correct my misunderstandings or under- Indigenous communities tend to developed representation of Anishnaabe define youth broadly, inclusive of infants, teachings. young leaders, and professionals. I aspire Chi miigwech for giving me the space to involve young people at multiple levels to think, learn, and pray through this arti- in my research, including, but not limited cle. Indigenous studies, along with allied to, bwaajwewin, project framing, cultural fields, including engaged anthropology and protocols, data collection, writing, and ethnobiology, are helping me understand dissemination of findings. Many Indige- the value of these principles and re-center nous nations have youthful demographics, my research ethics around honorable rela- with half or more of their citizens under tionships with Indigenous Nations. To move 18. Involving youth helps ensure that your from understanding to praxis, I need to work efforts are sustained over the long haul with my partners to co-determine strategies (Whyte et al. 2017). and accountabilities for enacting these A comment I hear a lot in Indigenous principles within specific contexts and for communities is “the youth are the future.” specific actions. The work and responsibil- I do not regard this insight as cliché, but ity of inawendiwin-based research involves as a teaching that fits within the broader sorting out honorable relationships, part- context of inawendiwin. I interpret the nership by partnership, and reckoning what insight in two ways. First, our research part- is ethically sound and respectful research nerships are opportunities for giving young according to the specific nations, and, in people professional and cultural experi- some instances, the specific families within ences or learning opportunities. In this a nation that I have the privilege to work sense, we are training our future leaders. with. Second, is that youth have skills, knowl- N’ahow, mii’iw edge, and wisdom that has the potential to make research smarter and more relevant Notes now and into the future. From this perspec- 1 Anishnaabe is a spoken language with many vari- ations in spelling. In this source, the spelling of tive, I see young people as my collaborators inawendiwin is enawendawin. and teachers. Acknowledgments Closing Thoughts I would like to thank Laura Ogden In this contribution, I am attempting for her thoughtful review of early drafts to contribute to a much-needed dialogue of this manuscript, the special issue guest between Indigenous studies and ethno- editors for their many rounds of excellent biology (and by extension anthropology; edits and constant encouragement, and my Sillitoe 2015). It is also a form of prayer, anonymous peer reviewers. All of these miigwechwewin, where I am thanking my individuals helped shape the final form of friends and research partners for all they this article. Chi miigwech to Minogiizhgad have taught me and thanking them for their of Bkejwanong and Joyce and Andy McGre- patience when I am a slow learner. I am gor from Manitoulin Island for helping me also asking for clarity and to seek guidance with the Ojibwe language aspects of this from readers. I am still immersed in a learn- article. Finally, I want to thank my research ing phase of my life; I am trying to sort out partners from the Indigenous Confluence how to conduct myself in a good way as an Initiative, from Team Typha, from my Anishnaabe person and scholar. I ask you home Tribe, and from the Bay Mills Indian to call me out for the times when I have Community for your commitment to our been a dishonorable research partner and friendship and work together.

References Cited River is in our Veins”: Re-defining River Arquette, M., M. Cole, and Akwesasne Task Restoration in Three Indigenous Communi- Force on the Environment. 2004. Restoring ties. Sustainability Science 12:521–533. Our Relationships for the Future. In In the Goodyear-Ka'o-pua, N. 2013. The Seeds We Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Planted. University of Minnesota Press, Life Projects, and Globalization, edited by Minneapolis, MN. M. Blaser, H. A. Feit, and G. McRae, pp. Hardison, P., and K. Bannister. 2011. Ethics in 332–350. Zed Books, London/New York. Ethnobiology: History, International Law Bannister, K., M. Solomon, and C. G. Brunk. and Policy, and Contemporary Issues. In 2009. Appropriation of Traditional Knowl- Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D. edge: Ethics in the Context of Ethnobiology. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn, and N. J. Turner, In The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation, pp. 27–49. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., edited by J. O. Young and C. G. Brunk, pp. Hoboken, NJ. 140–172. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., West Hoover, E. 2017. The River Is in Us: Fighting Sussex, UK. Toxics in a Mohawk Community. University Castleden, H. E., D. Martin, A. Cunsolo, S. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Harper, C. Hart, P. Sylvestre, R. Stefanelli, Hunn, E. 2007. Ethnobiology in Four L. Day, and K. Lauridsen. 2017. Imple- Phases. Journal of Ethnobiology 27:1–10. menting Indigenous and Western Knowl- Johnson, J. T., R. Howitt, G. Cajete, F. Berkes, edge Systems (Part 2): “You Have to Take R. P. Louis, and A. Kliskey. 2016. Weaving a Backseat” and Abandon the Arrogance Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences of Expertise. The International Indigenous to Diversify our Methods. Sustainability Policy Journal 8:8. Science 11:1–11. Castleden, H. E., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb. Johnston, B. 2013. Is That All There Is? Tribal 2012. “I Spent the First Year Drinking Tea”: Literature. In Centering Anishnaabeg Exploring Canadian University Researchers’ Studies, edited by J. Doerfler, H. K. Stark, Perspectives on Community-Based Partic- and N. J. Sinclair, pp. 3–12. Michigan State ipatory Research Involving Indigenous University Press, East Lansing, MI. Peoples. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 56:160–179. Kimmerer, R. W. 2003. Gathering Moss: A Natural and Cultural History of Mosses. Coombes, B., J. T. Johnson, and R. Howitt. 2014. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Indigenous Geographies III: Methodolog- OR. ical Innovation and the Unsettling of Partic- ipatory Research. Progress in Human Geog- Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: raphy 38:845–854. Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Daly, L., K. French, T. L. Miller, and L. N. Eoin. Editions, Minneapolis, MN. 2016. Integrating Ontology into Ethnobo- tanical Research. Journal of Ethnobiology Lepofsky, D., and K. Feeney. 2013. Ten Princi- 36:1–9. ples of Ethnobiology: An Interview with Amadeo Rea. In Explorations in Ethnobi- Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and R. M. O’Flaherty. 2007. ology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, edited Researchers, Indigenous Peoples, and Place- by M. Quinlan and D. Lepofsky, pp. 44–59. Based Learning Communities. Society and Society of Ethnobiology, Denton, TX. Natural Resources 20:291–305. Louis, R. P. 2007. Can You Hear Us Now? Fowler, C. T., and S. Herron. 2018. The Long Voices from the Margin: Using Indigenous Program for Ethics in Ethnobiology. Ethno- Methodologies in Geographic Research. biology Letters 9:1–3. Geographical Research 45:130–139. Fox, C. A., N. J. Reo, D. A. Turner, J. Cook, F. McGregor, D. 2009. Linking Traditional Dituri, B. Fessell, J. Jenkins, A. Johnson, T. Knowledge and Environmental Prac- M. Rakena, C. Riley, A. Turner, J. Williams, tice in Ontario. Journal of Canadian and M. Wilson. 2017. “The River is Us; The Studies 43:69–100.

Mello, M. M., and L. E. Wolf. 2010. The Simpson, L. ed. 2008. Lighting the Eighth Fire: Havasupai Indian Tribe Case—Lessons The Liberation, Resurgence, and Protec- for Research Involving Stored Biologic tion of Indigenous Nations. Arbeiter Ring, Samples. New England Journal of Medicine Winnipeg, MB. 363:204–207. Sinclair, N. J. 2013. K’zaugin: Storying Ourselves Mohawk, J. 2010. Clear Thinking: A Positive into Life. In Centering Anishnaabeg Studies, Solidarity View of Nature. In Thinking in edited by J. Doerfler, H. K. Stark, and N. Indian: A John Mohawk Reader, edited by J. Sinclair, pp. 81–102. Michigan State J. Barreiro, pp. 274–277. Fulcrum, Golden, University Press, East Lansing, MI. CO. Smith, L. T. 2013. Decolonizing Methodologies: Mulrennan, M. E., R. Mark, and C. H. Scott. 2012. Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Revamping Community-Based Conserva- Books Ltd., London, UK. tion through Participatory Research. The Steinhauer, E. 2002. Thoughts on an Indigenous Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe cana- Research Methodology. Canadian Journal dien 56:243–259. of Native Education 26:69–81. Rundstrom, R. A., and D. Deur. 1999. Recip- TallBear, K. 2014. Standing with and Speaking as rocal Appropriation: Toward an Ethics of Faith: A Feminist-Indigenous Approach to Cross Cultural Research. In Geography and Inquiry. Journal of Research Practice 10:17. Ethics, edited by J. D. Proctor and D. M. Smith, pp. 237–250. Routledge, London Whyte, K. P., N. J. Reo, D. McGregor, M. A. and New York. Smith, and J. Jenkins. 2017. Seven Indige- nous Principles for Successful Cooperation Salmón, E. 2000. Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous in Great Lakes Conservation Initiatives. In Perceptions of the Human–Nature Relation- Biodiversity, Conservation and Environ- ship. Ecological Applications 10:1327–1332. mental Management in the Great Lakes Seven Generations Education Institute. 2015. Basin, edited by E. Freedman and M. R. Anishinaabe Mino Bimaadizwin: Principles Neuzil, pp. 182–194. Routledge, London for Anishinaabe Education. Seven Genera- and New York. tions Education Institute, Thunder Bay, ON, Wilson, S. 2001. What is an Indigenous Canada. Available at: http://www.7gener- Research Methodology? Canadian Journal ations.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ of Native Education 25:175–179. AMB-Booklet-3.pdf. Wilson, S. 2008. Research is Ceremony: Indig- Sillitoe, P. 2015. The Dialogue Between Indig- enous Research Methods. Fernwood, enous Studies and Engaged Anthropology: Winnipeg, MB. Some First Impressions. In Indigenous Studies and Engaged Anthropology: The Wilson, S., and P. Wilson. 1998. Relational Collaborative Moment, edited by P. Sillitoe, Accountability to All Our Relations. Cana- pp. 19–48. Routledge, London and New dian Journal of Native Education 22:155. York.