Multidisciplinary Indigenous Research: Preliminary Findings of a Scoping Review of Canadian Scholarship (1997 to 2020)

Research in Indigenous contexts has historically been associated with colonialism. To counter this, recent Indigenous research re-centers knowledge production on Indigenous worldviews and voices. As a settler ally, I have conducted a scoping review of Canadian Indigenous research using a mixed method approach (Western and Indigenous), adopting Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping methodology (for initial five steps) and Kovach’s (2010) Indigenous conversational method for consultations. The aim of this scoping review is to map out the praxis of Indigenous research by examining current epistemological trends, the diversity of Indigenous methods used and the role of researcher positionality in Indigenous research. Preliminary findings (before consultations) based on 46 papers across disciplines, point out to an increase in the number of Indigenous research projects conducted in Canada in the last five years. There is also evidence of substantial efforts by scholars to engage in respectful and reciprocal research partnerships with Indigenous partners.


Introduction
Historically, research in Indigenous contexts is associated with colonialism (Smith, 1999). In response to this, Indigenous scholars have recentered research on Indigenous ways of knowing and doing (Castellano, 2004;Chilisa, 2020;Kovach, 2009;Smith, 1999;Wilson, 2008). This shift in the way in which Indigenous peoples are studied marks the advent of an "Indigenous research paradigm" (Wilson, 2008: 35). Indigenous research, therefore, distinguishes itself from Western research as it "follows an ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology that is Indigenous" (Wilson, 2008: 38). Furthermore, Indigenous research, as a decolonizing approach, disrupts the colonial logic that underlies researchers' perspectives and practices (Chilisa, 2020). There is also a growing interest in Indigenous knowledge systems and in decolonial studies which has led this "fifth paradigm" to gain momentum and prominence among researchers (Chilisa, 2020: 19). Nonetheless, this raises some crucial questions: Is an Indigenous paradigm right for everyone? Is Indigenous research always being conducted according to the principles set out by Indigenous scholars? Indeed, Indigenous research entails that Indigenous people have control over their own knowledge (Battiste & Henderson, 2000) and requires that researchers share power and conduct research ethically, for the benefit of Indigenous communities (Battiste, 2008). Yet is this always the case? This scoping review on Indigenous research, therefore, sets out to examine how the principles of Indigenous research have been applied in the last twenty years in Canadian scholarship across disciplines by looking at the diverse epistemological currents present, the multiple methodological approaches used, and the crucial role that researcher positionality plays in Indigenous research. One of the anticipated outcomes of this research is finding strategies to assess the value and integrity of the research projects conducted under the banner of "Indigenous research".

Positionality
Positionality statements promote transparency and rigour by acknowledging the author's background and how this may impact the research (Carter et al., 2014;Martin, 2017). As a Mexican immigrant woman living in Montreal, on the unceded territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawk) Nation, I position myself as an "Indigenist" ally, understood as "a movement that works collaboratively towards Indigenous peoples' goals for sovereignty and self-determination" (Battiste, 2013: 74). This research, therefore, stems from my personal interest in Indigenous epistemologies and methodologies and my hope is that it will help researchers navigate the complexities of Indigenous ways of doing research and that it will assist them in deciding if this approach is right for them.

Background
Concisely, Indigenous epistemologies emerge out of vibrant Indigenous place-based cultures, and are not, as commonly held, "stationary, prehistoric, and unchanging" (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008: 11). On the contrary, Indigenous knowledge systems are dynamic, relational, rooted in diverse ecosystems and articulated in a myriad of languages (Battiste, 2000;Castellano, 2000;Kovach, 2009;Salmon, 2012;Wilson, 2008). Indigenous scholars agree that beyond the multiplicity of Indigenous practices, and values, there is an underlying unifying relational principle shared by many Indigenous epistemologies (Battiste, 2000;Castellano, 2000;Wilson, 2008). This principle of relationality, or "kincentricity", creates an interwoven and cohesive Indigenous worldview in which humans are related to each other, to the natural world (plants, animals, mountains, rivers) and to the spirit world (Salmón, 2012: 21). This principle, consequently, gets played out in the spheres of human interaction, interactions with the natural world, and interactions with Spirit(s) (Battiste, 2000;Kovach, 2009;Wilson, 2008;Salmón, 2012).
In research, Indigenous methodologies enact this epistemic principle of relationality and ensure that research embodies a high level of relational accountability (Kovach, 2009;Smith, 1999;Wilson, 2008). Indigenous methodologies accordingly follow a relational axiology and apply the "four Rs" code of research: "respectful representation, reciprocal appropriation, and right and regulations during the research process" (Chilisa, 2020: 24). In terms of the Indigenous methods, they are "a mix of existing methodological approaches and Indigenous practices" (Smith, 1999: 144), and as this approach has developed, Indigenous methods have become more and more distinctly Indigenous (Kovach, 2009;Lavallée, 2009).
Finally, in qualitative research, the researcher is the interpretative tool that transforms data into knowledge. Acknowledging the researcher's positionality brings transparency to the research as it identifies the possible biases in the analysis and the interpretation of findings (Carter et al., 2014). Because of the colonial history of research, positionality or situatedness is even more important in Indigenous research. The feminist notion of situatedness challenges traditional notions of "objectivity" and confronts western assumptions that knowledge production is uninvested and neutral as it argues that knowledge is always partial and embodied: "We unmasked the doctrines of objectivity because they threatened our budding sense of collective historical subjectivity and agency, and our embodied accounts of truth" (Haraway, 1988, p. 578). The critique of positivism by feminism is compatible with the Indigenous critique of positivism in that Indigenous peoples were for a long time the 'objects' of scrutiny of the "conquering gaze from nowhere" (Haraway, 1988: 581). This 'gaze' looked down upon Indigenous people and Indigenous thought (Smith, 1999) as it "claimed the power to see and not be seen, to represent while escaping representation" (Haraway, 1988: 581). To counter this, Indigenous research radically re-positions itself from the perspective of the formerly colonized societies: "It is from the position of being the researched that Maori have resisted and challenged social science research. This challenge has confronted both methodological issues and epistemological concerns" (Smith, 1999: 174). Consequently, acknowledging researcher positionality is crucial in Indigenous research and entails that, researchers reflect on their location in relation to Indigenous peoples and Indigenous thought: "In Indigenous research paradigms, not only does it matter how research is conducted, but it also matters whom the researchers are in the doing of it" (Stelmach, Kovach & Steeves, 2017: 5).

Method
This scoping review on Indigenous research will use a mixed-method scoping approach (Western & Indigenous) based on Arksey & O'Malley's (2005) methodological framework (first five steps) and Kovach's (20120) Indigenous conversational method (sixth step). In brief, these steps are: (1) Identifying the broad research questions that clearly articulate the scope of inquiry of the review, (2) Identifying the relevant studies through an elaboration of a database search strategy, (3) Study selection (with inclusion and exclusion criteria), (4) Charting the data by synthesizing it according to key concepts and themes, (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results, including descriptive numerical analysis and qualitative thematic analysis. The sixth methodological step is a consultation exercise with stakeholders and experts in the field to validate the study findings and interpretations (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005: 23-29). At this point, the final step of the review is in progress.

Research questions
The questions that guided the thematic analysis of the selected studies for this review are: (1) What are the distinctive Indigenous methodological approaches presented in these studies? How do they set Indigenous research apart from other research approaches? (2) What are the main Indigenous epistemological/theoretical frameworks found in the reviewed Indigenous research? Do these epistemologies constitute variations within a unified Indigenous epistemological paradigm? (3) How do most researchers position themselves? What is the connection between researchers' positionalities and their epistemic and methodological choices? What are some of the learning and/or training foundations presented in these studies that enabled Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers to conduct Indigenous research? What are some of the implications of researcher positionality that can be drawn from these studies? How does selfreflective researcher positionality serve to guarantee that Indigenous knowledge systems are not distorted? 4.2 The time frame for scoping review: 1996-2020 In 1991, The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) led to the publication of the RCAP report (1996) which ushered in a time of change in the Canadian political climate and especially in the relationship between the government and Indigenous peoples. This scoping review, therefore, begins by looking at Indigenous research conducted after RCAP (1997) and end in 2020. Additionally, in 2015, there is another turning point, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission publishes its report (http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf). This commission increased the attention of research institutions on Indigenous issues and pushed them to enact reconciliation through research. Therefore, the selected studies for this review were subdivided into two categories: research conducted between 1997-2015 and research conducted between 2016-2020.

Database search processes
In collaboration with the education librarian (P.L), a comprehensive search strategy for locating Indigenous research studies was developed. Based on a detailed analysis of Indigenous research scholarship, the search terms used included all the relevant terms identifying Canadian Indigenous populations, Indigenous methodologies, and Indigenous epistemologies (Castellano, 2004;Chilisa, 2020;Kovach, 2009;Smith, 1999;Wilson, 2008).

Identification of relevant Indigenous research studies
The inclusion criteria for selecting qualifying studies were based on (1) geographical criteria (Canada); (2) temporal criteria , and (3) on the methodologies and epistemologies frameworks used which had to be self-identified as Indigenous. Once the initial search was done, the exclusion of studies was based on erroneous population and erroneous methodology. Furthermore, theoretical articles were also excluded from this study (systematic and/or scoping reviews, editorials, book introductions, book reviews and literature reviews). Consequently, the initial search, in four databases (Table 1), yielded a total of 279 articles dating from 1997 to 2020. After 24 duplicates were removed, 255 studies were screened using titles and abstracts. The title and abstract screening process allowed us to look in detail at the Indigenous population participating in the study and at the methodologies used. This step identified 118 articles as being irrelevant and 137 studies as moving up to the next step of the review. The final selection of studies was based on a full-text review of each article deemed relevant. This final stage yielded 46 articles that met all the identified inclusion criteria.

Charting the data
Two charting tables were developed (supplemental files): one regrouping all the selected studies from 1997-2015 and one from 2016-2020. Nine data items were used to record relevant information from the sources that met all the inclusion criteria, these were: a) authors, year of publication and journal name, (b) discipline/area of research, (c) Indigenous community participating in the study (with geographical location), (d) epistemology/theoretical framework, (e) study design, (f) methods used, (g) community outcomes and/or study objectives met, (h) analytical process for interpretation of results, (i) form of dissemination of study in participating community, (j) researcher positionality in the study.
In terms of the methods: storytelling and storywork (n=11), which center on personal life-stories and the significant cultural narratives and talking circles (n=11) were the most used methods. Unstructured interviews, consistent with oral ways of sharing knowledge and with storytelling, were less used (n=5). One study used the Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection, a new modified arts-based visual research method (Lavallée, 2009), and finally, digital storytelling emerged as a new narrative method that incorporates both audio and video components (Iseke, 2010;).
An important aspect of Indigenous research is reciprocity (Kovach, 2009). This means giving back to the community in ways that benefits the community directly (Smith, 1999;Castellano, 2004). All the research methods used in these studies were connected to community outcomes (see Table 4). These include intergenerational relationship building (Thorpe, 1998;Bell, 2013), revitalization of traditional ways of teaching, learning, and healing (Iseke, 2010Bell 2013); knowledge creation in a distinct Indigenous way (Sterling, 2002;Lavallée, 2009), capacity building for local researchers (Thorpe, 1998), positive identity formation for youth (Thorpe, 1998;Bell, 2013) and greater recognition of the validity of Indigenous knowledge (Bell, 2013;Latulippe, 2015).  (2016)(2017)(2018)(2019)(2020) In the second period, the methodological design most used to foment relational accountability was participatory-action-research (PAR) and/or community-based research with Elders deeply involved throughout the research process. The method most used during this time was talking circles/sharing circles/healing circles (n=14). Additionally, "circle methodology" was often combined with storytelling, creating one seamless movement in which stories were shared within a circle (Wilson, 2008). "Feasting" or gathering to eat, was also described as a "sharing circle" type of method since its goal was to share stories about traditional foods (Bagelman, Devereaux & Hartley, 2016). Indigenous autoethnography emerged as an individual reflective storytelling method (St-Denis & Walsh, 2016). Some research projects used semi-structured interviews and conversational methods (n=8), and only two projects included ethnographic field methods (observations and field notes) as part of an 'emic' Indigenous observational approach in which the researcher is a member of the community (Wilson, 2008;Deer, 2016). Finally, digital storytelling continued to develop and expand its scope (Freeman, Martin, Nash, Hausknecht, Skinner, 2020).
In terms of the methods that embody the principles of the "four Rs", ceremonies incorporating tobacco offerings to Elders were part of almost every project (21 out of 23 studies). In terms of identified community outcomes, talking circles (n=14) were linked to relationship building and the creation of knowledge (Bagelman, Devereaux & Hartley, 2016), storytelling was related to revitalizing Indigenous knowledge and relationship building in educational research (Deer, 2016;Stelmach, Kovach & Steeves, 2017), and digital storytelling was be associated to intergenerational knowledge creation (Freeman, Martin, Nash, Hausknecht & Skinner, 2020) (see Table 5).

Results for Indigenous epistemologies
The results of the epistemological analysis were divided not by period but by area of research. A disciplinary subdivision imposed itself because different disciplines tend to utilize different theoretical frameworks. Education research, for example, tends to be associated with a post-positivistic perspective, that might include constructivist, phenomenological or critical theoretical frameworks (Kovach, 2009). On the other hand, health research (epidemiology, treatment research) tends to be associated with a scientific positivist outlook and with quantitative methods (Smith, 1999). The following analysis, therefore, was aimed at seeing if depending on the area of research, Indigenous epistemologies were applied differently. The table below (6) lists all the Indigenous theoretical frameworks used in the studies reviewed and links them to different areas/disciplines. Subsequently, some of these frameworks are discussed more in detail.

Epistemologies in Indigenous Health studies: 1997-2020
In sum, all the epistemologies employed in the health-related studies privileged a holistic and decolonizing approach and therefore prioritized Indigenous "teachings" about health over pathological considerations. These epistemologies were characterized by using place-based cultural references (Smith 2018) and emphasizing the larger worldview of connectedness, or the principle of "all our relations and its importance to physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health" (McGinnis et al., 2019: 165). Consequently, the Medicine Wheel was used as a theoretical framework, as well as the Anishinaabe, Seven Generations Teaching (Lavallée, 2009;Lavallée & Poole, 2010), the Cree health teaching circle (Pazderka et al., 2014), and Inuit knowledge or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) (Thorpe, 1998;Healey, 2014, Morris, 2016. These frameworks can also be considered anti-colonial as they affirm Indigenous people's rights to self-determination and include the larger social and political context of colonization and intergenerational trauma (McGinnis et al., 2019). In this way, for example, the "Wise-practices approach" is said to be "inclusive, locally relevant, sustainable, respectful, flexible, and pragmatic" and considers the "historical, societal, cultural, and environmental factors" that play into a study (Pretrucka et al., 2016, p. 181). Indigenism in health research, therefore, emerges as a form of epistemic resistance that "directly confronts and challenges colonial oppression and uphold Indigenous selfdetermination." (Rowe et al., 2020: 160). Therefore, the Indigenous health studies reviewed defied the biomedical dominant model of health and proposed a holistic vision and approach to health issues and healing: "Where the Aboriginal health model is holistic and encompasses the four dimensions of health (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being), the Western biomedical concept of health often concentrates on disease and infirmity" (Howell et al. 2016: 114).

Indigenous educational studies: 1997-2020
In educational research, the epistemologies used also espoused a holistic and relational Indigenous worldview. Indigenous stories were given the forefront as concrete manifestations of Indigenous epistemologies. Storywork and storytelling were used as theoretical and analytical frameworks (Alteo, 2009;Stelmach, Kovach & Steeves, 2017;Deer, 2016). The Medicine Wheel was also used to connect education and wellness as a "wheel-as-model approach" proposing a framework used to promote a holistic and integrated approach to education (Robinson, Barrett & Robinson 2016, p. 111). Land-based educational research using Anishinaabe epistemologies also underlined how research must prioritize traditional ecological knowledge to support educational self-determination (Twance, 2019). Additionally, Critical tribal theory (a subset of Critical race theory) was used to revalorize and preserve Indigenous knowledge, but also, to transform Indigenous education (Alteo, 2009). Lastly, Indigenous research in education also used "a unifying Indigenous philosophy" to amplify the voice of Indigenous students and their experiences in the education system (Stelmach, Kovach & Steeves, 2017: 5).

Results for researcher positionality
In 40 out of the 46 studies reviewed, authors explicitly located themselves and engaged in a self-reflexive examination of their positionality and discussed how this location influenced them as knowledge producers. Additionally, most researchers reflected on the principle of relationality in the process of doing Indigenous research and on the importance of having and maintaining respectful relationships/partnerships with Indigenous participants. Furthermore, most researchers acknowledged that this self-reflexive exercise was a crucial aspect of Indigenous research (Wilson, 2008). Nonetheless, there was less consensus among researchers regarding what best qualified them to do Indigenous research in the first place. In some cases, the accumulated knowledge and professional experiences in Indigenous contexts were seen as enabling non-Indigenous researchers to do Indigenous research (Robinson, Barrett & Robinson, 2016;Healy, 2014, Thorpe 1998. In other cases, it was argued that it was the Indigenous sensibility of Indigenous researchers that best positioned them to do Indigenous research (Stelmach, Kovach & Steeves, 2017;Twance, 2019).
Based on what researchers said about their own locations and experiences with Indigenous peoples, three main positions were identified throughout the studies reviewed: (1) the emic/insider Indigenous researcher(s), (2) the collaborative team made up of a mix of insider and outsider perspectives, and (3) the outsider Settler researcher(s). The table below (Table 7) summarizes what characterizes each position and identifies where each study is located.  Graveline, 2001;. Sterling, 2002. Restoule, 2005. Edge & McCallum, 2006. Alteo, 2009. Lavallée, 2009. Iseke, 2010. Bell, 2013 7 th International e-Conference on Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences (27-42) ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 37

Discussion
There was an increase in the number of Indigenous research projects conducted in Canada between 1997 and 2020, especially after 2015. More precisely, 23 studies were identified over the first period of 8 years, from 1997 to 2015, and 23 studies were identified over the second period of 4 years, from 2016 to 2020, corresponding to a 100% increase. This can certainly be related to the publication of the TRC report (2015) and to the impetus of research institutions to enact reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada through research.
Based on our findings, over the last 23 years, not only did the number of Indigenous research projects increase but also the number of collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers augmented (1997-2015=11 and 2016-2020=15). This can be interpreted as a positive thing as it guarantees that current research in Indigenous contexts is not reproducing past mistakes where non-Indigenous researchers were "appropriating the vision of the less powerful while claiming to see from their position" (Haraway, 1988: 584). Indeed, as mentioned before, Indigenous research must include the sensitivities and perspectives of Indigenous peoples to be valid: "A non-indigenous, non-Maori person can be involved in Kaupapa Maori research, but not on their own" (Smith, 1999: 186). Furthermore, collaborations constitute an epistemic bridging or a "shared conversation in epistemology" between Settler allies and Indigenous scholars which is fertile ground for decolonizing research as it privileges "contestation, deconstruction, passionate construction, webbed connections, and hope for the transformation of systems and ways of seeing" (Haraway, 1988: 585).
Nonetheless, the great number of collaborations noted is also consistent with the fact that there are very few Indigenous researchers in academia and, therefore, most Indigenous research must be conducted in mixed teams: "One of the impacts of colonialism is that the number of Indigenous researchers remains low, representing less than 1% of Canadian scholars" (Hart, Straka & Rowe, 2017: 332). Hence, we must not idealize collaborations as they are not devoid of risks and require negotiations in multiple contexts and involve researchers in different accountabilities (Hart, Straka & Rowe, 2017).
Concurrently, researcher relationality with Indigenous peoples also stands out as a crucial factor determining how Indigenous research will be conducted. Indeed, there appears to be a positive correlation between researcher positionality and relationality: the more a researcher is centered in an Indigenous-insider position, with close ties to an Indigenous community, the more his knowledge is situated from "the vantage point of the subjugated" (Haraway, 1988: 581), and the more his methodologies are accountable to communities and centered in Indigenous place-based cultures. For non-Indigenous researchers, this is similar, the more they are centered in their relationships to Indigenous partners and communities, the more they include their perspective, and reflect on their own position, the more they practice relational accountability.
Finally, the question of what constitutes "good" Indigenous research imposes itself. It has been argued that "good" qualitative research is marked by the consistency between epistemology, methodology and method (Carter & Little, 2007). But in the case of Indigenous research, we can argue that 'good' Indigenous research also requires an internal coherence between a researcher's situatedness or positionality, his/her epistemic stance, his/her methodology, and the methods used. This coherence is needed because Indigenous knowledge systems are not simply theoretical constructions learned in university but are embodied knowledge systems that are learned and enacted through relationships, in community and through ceremonies. The Medicine Wheel, for example, is not just a disincarnated health/wellness theory, it is an actual healing path, with teachings and principles enacted in rituals like the Sweat lodge (Lavallée, 2009). In this way, Indigenous epistemologies are intimately connected to a researcher's positionality and this connection between epistemology, positionality and methodology must be explicitly stated if the research conducted is to demonstrate internal consistency or coherence.
Based on this criterion, some research projects were identified as having a high level of internal coherence, meaning that authors explicitly connected their positionality with their theoretical framework, which in turn justified their methodology. On the other hand, others had a weaker or lower level of inner coherence, and a discrepancy was identified between positionality, epistemology, and methodology. The deciding factor was not the articulation of an Indigenous epistemological framework but rather how well-grounded this framework was in relation to the situatedness of the researchers conducting the study.
The table below (Table 8) lists several examples and links positionality, relationality with the epistemic and methodological choices of the researchers conducting the studies. This table also demonstrates how some studies can be identified as being stronger or more internally coherent than others. Ancestral ties to a community and/or family ties to community members.
Personal involvement/close ties with Indigenous communities leads to prioritizing research participants as co-creator of knowledge.
Clear articulation of an Indigenous epistemology with identified place-based culture -well-grounded.
Smith (2018)  Mainly uses an Indigenous theoretical framework clearly based on the Indigenous culture of the Indigenous researchers -no appropriation.
Treaty perspective of respectful relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing.

Example:
Natasha Thorpe (1998) used Inuit knowledge (IQ) as its epistemological framework related to mix team's positionality. Morris (2016) used IQ as theoretical framework in collaboration with Inuit women's association. Latulippe, (2015) Wampum belt framework used to reflect Treaty approach of respectful collaboration.
Mixed method approach with some Indigenous and some non-Indigenous research methods.
Uses to its advantage the cultural differences of researchers: Indigenous research may conduct interviews, lead sharing circles with Indigenous participants for example.

Example:
Natasha Thorpe (1998) Robinson, Barrett, and Robinson (2016) Seeking long-lasting relationships with Indigenous cultures but this might not be possible beyond the research project as such.
For example: Robinson, Barrett and Robinson (2016) and Mi'kmaw culturally relevant physical education no specific reference to Mi'kmaw epistemology.

Example:
The conversational method used by Robinson, Barrett and Robinson (2016).

Limitations
While some Indigenous communities across Canada have chosen to engage in research alongside Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, many have chosen to not do this type of work. Therefore, this review, although detailed, only represents the tip of the iceberg in terms of the vast creation of knowledge that is happening within Indigenous communities across Canada.
Methodologically speaking, the database search strategy for the scoping review drew from pertinent terms identified in the relevant literature, but this strategy might have excluded inadvertently some valuable studies that might have used Indigenous terms to describe their methodologies and epistemologies. This scoping review also did not include a systematic bibliographical search of the selected studies; thus, other valuable studies might have been inadvertently excluded.

Conclusion
This scoping review, based on 46 studies conducted across disciplines in Canada between 1997 and 2020, found that, over the last two decades, Indigenous research has come into prominence. Furthermore, this review also has discovered that the most prominent form of Indigenous research is across contexts, as collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers. All these trends point to the fact that Indigenous knowledge systems are becoming less marginalized in the academy, yet, paradoxically, Indigenous researchers remain few in numbers. Considering this, it is crucial to reflect on the positionality of researchers conducting Indigenous research. Indeed, it is important to consider if, in the research conducted, there is a coherence between a researchers' position, his epistemic stance, and his methodology, as this will allow Indigenous knowledge systems to be protected from misrepresentation and distortion. Traditionally, Indigenous knowledge has been protected in communities by "knowledge keepers" who were responsible for safeguarding it and made sure that those who received it would protect it (Salmon, 2020). How can this be done in an academic context? By making sure that the Indigenous partners involved in research accompany non-Indigenous researchers in elaborating their theoretical frameworks and methodologies so that these are grounded in relationships and in specific place-based cultures (Hart, Straka & Rowe, 2017). Finally, the task of protecting Indigenous knowledge cannot just fall on the shoulders of Indigenous partners, non-Indigenous researchers must also take it upon themselves to internalize the research principles of Indigenous research outlined by Indigenous scholars.