Skip to main content
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Indigenization, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
  • Governance
  • About People
  • Expert Profiles
  • Student Stories
  • About Places
  • Research Centres
  • Access to Research Centres
  • University Facilities
  • Tours and Biosecurity
  • About Programs
  • Quick Tips: Preparing Your Tier 1 Proposal
  • Research & Innovation
  • Resources for Researchers
  • Knowledge Translation and Transfer Support
  • Veterinary Capacity
  • Agriculture & Food Laboratory
  • Animal Health Laboratory
  • Commercialization
  • Data Management
  • Regulatory Training
  • Property Management
  • Quick Tips: Preparing a High-Quality Report
  • Amendment Requests
  • Acknowledging OMAFA Funding
  • Research Program Directors
  • Research Security
  • Ag-Tech
  • Beef
  • Dairy
  • Field Crops
  • Horticulture
  • Poultry
  • Swine
  • Case Studies
  • Annual Reports
  • News
  • Events
  • Newsletter
  1. U of G Homepage
  2. Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance

Engaging with Indigenous Peoples, Communities and Knowledges

The Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance has formally stated its commitments to reconciliation, indigenization and decolonization. The information resources shared here are offered to help advance these commitments and were developed by Emily Nanne Agri-Food Advisory Services with the support and endorsement of the Office of Indigenous Initiatives.

Introduction

Research involving Indigenous Peoples, communities, knowledges, lands, waters, food systems, or governance carries important ethical, relational, and institutional responsibilities. This resource applies primarily to First Nations, Métis and Inuit but may also be applicable to Indigenous Peoples outside Canada. For more guidance on how to refer to Indigenous Peoples, please see our Indigenous Peoples Writing Style Guide.

At the University of Guelph, researchers are encouraged to approach this work in ways that respect Indigenous rights, self-determination, knowledge systems, and community priorities. Meaningful engagement is not simply a requirement for ethics approval; it is an ongoing process of relationship-building, reflection, reciprocity, and accountability.

Not all projects require the same level or type of engagement. However, researchers should take time early in project development to consider whether their work may involve or affect Indigenous Peoples, communities, lands, data, or interests and what responsibilities may follow from that connection.

Researchers are not expected to begin this work as experts in Indigenous engagement. They are expected to approach the work with humility, openness, reflexivity, and a willingness to learn and build respectful relationships over time.

These resources are intended to provide practical guidance to help researchers:

  • reflect on Indigenous engagement considerations early in project development
  • strengthen ethical and relational approaches to research
  • avoid common pitfalls
  • support respectful, relational and reciprocal collaboration
  • understand responsibilities related to Indigenous data and knowledge governance

These resources are intended to complement existing University of Guelph Indigenous research ethics guidance, TCPS2 Chapter 9, and community or Nation-specific protocols.

Decorative line

What Indigenous Engagement Is Not

Meaningful Indigenous engagement is not:

  • obtaining a last-minute letter of support
  • approaching communities only after a project has been designed
  • asking one individual to represent all Indigenous perspectives
  • treating Indigenous knowledge as a resource to be extracted
  • assuming consultation alone equals collaboration
  • relying solely on institutional ethics approval
  • expecting unpaid cultural, relational, or emotional labour
  • including Indigenous content without accountability or relationship

Researchers should consider the following questions early in project development.

Does my project involve or affect:

  • Indigenous Peoples, Nations, communities, organizations, or participants?
  • Indigenous lands, waters, territories, food systems, or governance?
  • Indigenous knowledge systems, cultural practices, oral histories, or community-held knowledge?
  • environmental stewardship, conservation, agriculture, fisheries, climate adaptation, or resource management connected to Indigenous rights or interests?
  • policies, programs, technologies, or systems that may affect Indigenous communities?
  • data connected to Indigenous Peoples, Nations, communities, organizations, or participants?

If the answer to any of these questions may be yes, early reflection and engagement are necessary.

Researchers should avoid waiting until a project is fully designed before considering Indigenous engagement responsibilities.

Meaningful Indigenous engagement begins with relationships, not transactions.

Strong relationships are built through:

  • early and ongoing dialogue
  • transparency
  • listening
  • reciprocity
  • shared learning
  • trust
  • respect for Indigenous governance and decision-making processes

Researchers should avoid approaching Indigenous communities only after:

  • project priorities are finalized
  • methodologies are established
  • funding applications are complete
  • timelines are fixed
  • decisions have already been made

Whenever possible, Indigenous partners should have opportunities to help shape:

  • research questions
  • priorities
  • methods
  • timelines
  • outputs
  • knowledge-sharing approaches
  • data storage and governance

Practical Considerations

Researchers should:

  • allow sufficient time for relationship-building and community engagement
  • learn about local Nations, territories, histories, and governance structures
  • recognize that communities may have distinct protocols and priorities
  • budget appropriately for engagement and participation
  • compensate Elders, Knowledge Holders, advisors, coordinators, and community participants appropriately – see Payments to Indigenous Peoples – for detailed instructions on honoraria for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Elders and Knowledge Holders.
  • recognize that trust-building may take significant time

Relationship-building should not be viewed as a procedural step required to “unlock” research access. Respectful engagement is an ongoing responsibility throughout the life of the project and beyond.

Indigenous knowledge systems are diverse, place-based, relational, and grounded in lived experience, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and relationships with land, water, language, and community.

Researchers should avoid treating Indigenous knowledges as:

  • supplementary data
  • less reliable or valid than western knowledges
  • publicly accessible information
  • a resource to be extracted for academic purposes

Indigenous communities and Knowledge Holders determine:

  • what knowledge may be shared
  • how it may be shared
  • who may access it
  • how it should be interpreted and used

Researchers should recognize that Indigenous methodologies, storytelling, oral traditions, ceremonies, land-based learning, and lived experience may all represent important forms of knowledge and research practice.

Research involving Indigenous data, knowledges, or community information may involve responsibilities beyond standard university data management procedures.

Researchers should familiarize themselves with:

  • OCAP® principles
  • CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance
  • Nation-specific or community-specific governance protocols

Discussions related to data governance should occur early and may include:

  • data ownership and stewardship
  • access and storage
  • confidentiality
  • future use of data
  • publication review processes
  • interpretation of findings
  • authorship and attribution
  • long-term access to research outputs

Researchers should not assume that university policies automatically override Indigenous governance expectations or community protocols.

Ethical Indigenous engagement includes thoughtful consideration of how research findings are shared, interpreted, and returned to communities.

Researchers should consider:

  • how findings will be communicated back to communities
  • whether outputs are accessible and useful beyond academic audiences
  • whether communities have been given ample opportunity to review findings before publication
  • how Indigenous contributors will be acknowledged or included
  • whether outputs reflect strengths-based and respectful framing

Accessible knowledge-sharing approaches may include:

  • community presentations
  • plain-language summaries
  • workshops
  • visual materials
  • youth or community education resources
  • collaborative publications or co-authorship

Communities should not first encounter research findings through academic publication or media coverage.

Researchers should reflect carefully on how Indigenous Peoples, communities, and experiences are represented within research proposals, publications, and presentations.

Strengths-based approaches recognize:

  • resilience
  • innovation
  • leadership
  • knowledge systems
  • stewardship
  • community strengths
  • self-determination

Researchers should avoid deficit-focused framing that portrays Indigenous communities primarily through:

  • problems
  • gaps
  • dysfunction
  • vulnerability
  • dependency

Language matters.

Example

Instead of:
“Indigenous communities lack…”

Consider:
“This project builds on existing Indigenous stewardship practices, knowledge systems, and community priorities…”

Researchers should also avoid assuming that one Indigenous perspective or experience represents all Indigenous Peoples or Nations. Great diversity exists among First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and even more so within each of these groups at the Nation, community, family or individual level.

Starting engagement too late

Communities are approached only after project priorities, methods, budgets, or timelines have already been finalized.

Confusing consultation with collaboration

Providing opportunities for feedback is not the same as shared decision-making or co-development.

Assuming one organization or individual can speak for all Indigenous Peoples

Different Nations, communities, organizations, and Knowledge Holders may have distinct perspectives, governance structures, and priorities.

Failing to budget for engagement

Meaningful engagement requires time, resources, compensation, and relationship-building support.

Treating Indigenous knowledge as publicly available information

Knowledge-sharing may involve cultural protocols, permissions, governance expectations, and restrictions on use.

Assuming ethics approval equals ethical Indigenous engagement

Research Ethics Board approval does not replace community relationships, protocols, or governance responsibilities.

Overpromising outcomes

Researchers should avoid creating expectations that cannot realistically be sustained after project funding or timelines conclude.

Using deficit-based framing

Research should avoid positioning Indigenous communities through narratives of deficiency, scarcity, crisis, or dysfunction. Inclusion of data that highlights deficits can and should be included at times, but it must not be the dominant narrative about Indigenous Peoples, communities, and organizations.

Expecting unpaid cultural or emotional labour

Indigenous partners, advisors, Elders, and Knowledge Holders should be appropriately recognized and compensated for their contributions.

The following examples highlight common challenges researchers may encounter when engaging with Indigenous Peoples, communities, knowledges, or governance systems. The goal is not to discourage research, but to support stronger, more respectful, and more collaborative approaches.

Common PitfallWhy It Can Create ChallengesStronger Approach
Approaching communities after the project is already designedCommunities will have little opportunity to shape priorities, methods, or outcomes in meaningful ways, or share what is beneficial or useful to themBegin engagement as early as possible and create space for Indigenous partners to influence project goals and direction
Seeking letters of support shortly before submission deadlinesThis creates pressure on communities and may appear transactionalBuild relationships before funding deadlines whenever possible and allow adequate time for review and discussion
Confusing consultation with collaborationProviding opportunities for feedback is not the same as shared decision-makingDiscuss clear expectations of engagement and capacity and identify where Indigenous partners would like to participate in planning, governance, interpretation, and/or knowledge-sharing
Assuming one Indigenous organization or individual represents all perspectivesIndigenous Peoples, Nations, communities, and organizations are diverse and may have distinct priorities or governance structuresLearn about the specific communities, Nations, territories, or organizations connected to the research and avoid pan-Indigenous assumptions
Treating Indigenous knowledge as publicly available informationSome knowledge may be governed by cultural protocols, permissions, or restrictions on use and sharingDiscuss knowledge governance, permissions, attribution, and appropriate use early in the project
Assuming Research Ethics Board approval is sufficientInstitutional ethics approval does not replace community protocols, governance, or relationship responsibilitiesRespect both university ethics processes and Indigenous governance expectations
Failing to budget for engagement and relationship-buildingMeaningful engagement requires time, travel, visiting, honoraria, coordination, and community participationInclude realistic engagement costs in project budgets and timelines from the outset. Be sure to ask community partners what they expect for compensation
Underestimating the time required for engagementCommunity processes, seasonal priorities, governance reviews, and relationship-building often require flexibilityBuild adaptable timelines and avoid expecting immediate responses or decisions
Using deficit-based language or framingDeficit-focused framing can reinforce harmful stereotypes and overlook community strengths, leadership, and innovationUse strengths-based language that recognizes resilience, knowledge systems, leadership, and self-determination
Treating Indigenous engagement as a procedural requirementEngagement that feels performative or transactional can damage trust and relationshipsApproach engagement as an ongoing relationship grounded in reciprocity, accountability, and shared learning
Expecting unpaid cultural, relational, or emotional labourIndigenous partners are often asked to provide significant expertise, guidance, and labour without any or adequate compensationBudget for appropriate honoraria and recognize the value of Indigenous expertise and contributions
Assuming all Indigenous communities have the same protocolsGovernance structures, decision-making processes, and expectations differ across Nations and organizationsAsk respectfully about community-specific protocols and avoid making assumptions
Failing to discuss data governance earlyMisunderstandings around ownership, storage, interpretation, or publication can damage relationshipsDiscuss data governance, access, authorship, and future use of information at the beginning of the project
Sharing findings publicly before communities have reviewed themCommunities may feel excluded from interpretation or surprised by how findings are representedProvide many opportunities for community review and discussion before publication or public release where appropriate
Overpromising long-term impacts or partnershipsCommunities may have experienced previous research relationships that ended abruptly after funding concludedCommunicate project limitations honestly and avoid making commitments that cannot realistically be sustained
Assuming Indigenous engagement only applies to projects explicitly focused on Indigenous issuesMany research areas may still affect Indigenous Peoples, lands, governance, food systems, or rightsReflect broadly on how research may intersect with Indigenous interests and realities, even if the project is not framed as “Indigenous research”
Using generic or pan-Indigenous terminology without specificityBroad language can erase the diversity of Indigenous Nations, cultures, and governance systemsUse community-specific or Nation-specific language whenever appropriate and possible, as indicated by the Indigenous partners you work with
Approaching Indigenous communities only when funding opportunities require engagementCommunities may perceive engagement as externally motivated rather than relationship-drivenBuild relationships beyond individual funding cycles
Failing to clarify expectations and rolesUnclear expectations can create confusion around decision-making, timelines, authorship, or responsibilitiesDiscuss roles, responsibilities, communication expectations, and decision-making processes early and revisit them throughout the project
Assuming Indigenous partners should educate the research team on all aspects of Indigenous history or engagementThis places disproportionate educational burdens on Indigenous collaboratorsResearchers should undertake their own foundational learning and preparation before engagement begin, and continue to do so throughout the project lifetime

A Note on Reflection and Continuous Learning

Researchers will not always get everything right the first time. Meaningful Indigenous engagement involves ongoing learning, reflection, humility, and adaptation. Strong research relationships are built over time through trust, accountability, openness, and a willingness to listen and adjust approaches when needed.

The Indigenous Research Level Evaluation Tool (IRLET) is intended to support reflective and relational approaches to research involving Indigenous Peoples, communities, knowledges, and interests.

The IRLET is not intended to function solely as a compliance or scoring mechanism. It can help researchers:

  • reflect on engagement approaches
  • identify areas for improvement
  • strengthen relationships and reciprocity
  • consider governance and ethical responsibilities
  • support more meaningful collaboration throughout the research lifecycle

Researchers are encouraged to revisit the IRLET:

  • during early project development
  • before funding applications
  • before REB submission
  • during partnership discussions
  • during project implementation
  • during knowledge mobilization and reporting

The strongest Indigenous research relationships are often built through ongoing reflection, listening, adaptation, and shared learning.

Note that a new version of the IRLET is being developed with agriculture and food research related scenarios. Please check back in future for more information.

Researchers may wish to consider the following questions during project development:

Relationships and Engagement

  • Have Indigenous partners had opportunities to shape project priorities?
  • Has engagement begun early enough to influence project design?
  • Have I learned about relevant community or Nation-specific protocols?
  • Have sufficient time and resources been allocated for engagement?

Governance and Ethics

  • Have data governance expectations been discussed?
  • Are there community-specific approval or review processes that should be respected?
  • Have knowledge-sharing expectations been clarified?

Reciprocity and Benefit

  • How will this project benefit Indigenous partners or communities?
  • Are contributions appropriately recognized and compensated?
  • How will findings be shared back in accessible ways?

Research Framing

  • Does the project avoid deficit-based assumptions or language?
  • Does the project recognize Indigenous strengths, knowledge systems, and leadership?
  • Have I reflected on my own assumptions and positionality?

Long-Term Relationships

  • What happens after the project ends?
  • Are relationships being approached respectfully and sustainably?
  • Have expectations and limitations been communicated honestly?

Researchers are encouraged to review:

  • University of Guelph Indigenous Research Ethics guidance
  • TCPS2 Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada
  • OCAP® Principles
  • CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance
  • USAI Research Framework (Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres)
  • community- or Nation-specific research protocols and governance expectations

Researchers are also encouraged to seek guidance early from Indigenous research advisors, community partners, and institutional supports where available.

Meaningful Indigenous engagement is an ongoing learning process grounded in humility, reciprocity, accountability, and respect.

Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance wordmark

Stay connected

Subscribe to our newsletter

Follow us @AgInnovationON

Connect with the Alliance on Twitter Connect with the Alliance on YouTube Connect with the Alliance on LinkedIn

In collaboration with

Government of Ontario logo

This website is managed by the University of Guelph. Views expressed here are the views of the University and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Ontario.