FOSTERING KNOWLEDGE CO-PRODUCTION IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN FORESTRY CURRICULA By Antoinette M. Shirley A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Forestry – Doctor of Philosophy 2025 ABSTRACT An estimated 4,000 miles of Indigenous forestland share a border with US Forest Service lands alone, not including other agencies and organizations that border Indigenous lands (Dockry and Hoagland, 2017). These shared borders mean that forest management and stewardship may benefit from cross-boundary collaboration and communication. Without proper training in communicating with, understanding of, and general exposure to tribal entities, future foresters are not only at a disadvantage, but are inadequately prepared to work meaningfully with tribal partners. In addition to this, federal land managers now have a legal requirement to consult with tribes on forest management in these areas where cross-boundary stewardship is essential (Dockry & Hoag, 2017). This requirement is often difficult, because new foresters lack the background knowledge or respect for Indigenous ways of knowing (Verma et al., 2016). Outside of classes and programs specifically designed to teach about Indigenous knowledge and topics, these students and future foresters do not receive the education and training they need to work meaningfully with tribes. Few research studies have examined the prevalence of Indigenous knowledge in forestry curricula and how forestry education can incorporate Indigenous knowledge comprehensively and even fewer have explored the benefits that come with this integration and collaboration in educational settings. This collaboration can then help knowledge co-production between Indigenous and non-Indigenous natural resource managers. Knowledge co-production (KCP) is a process that requires a time investment and open- mindedness among the contributors. KCP combines Indigenous knowledge and Western science to create stronger management outcomes that address current environmental challenges facing the world (Kruijf et. al., 2020). With an increasing emphasis on KCP, particularly with underrepresented and historically marginalized communities, there is a demand placed upon communities to engage in research and knowledge co-production, by researchers and the entities that fund them. In the Great Lakes Watershed, there are 27 federally recognized tribal groups. These tribal communities are facing disproportionate impacts from climate change, such as sea-level rise and increase in intense weather changes (David-Chavez and Gavin, 2018). This work seeks to understand how tribes in the region are affected by and managing their natural resources, understanding their capacity for knowledge co-production, study capacity impacts of knowledge co-production, and if and how this knowledge is used in forestry curricula. From this study we found that the greatest concerns for tribes in the region are climate change and capacity, however there is a strong interest in knowledge co-production with some tribes already implementing some collaborative projects. We found that there are practical limitations to knowledge co-production and capacity is the central barrier. Preparing future forestry professionals to engage in meaningful knowledge co-production will not only require a deeper understanding of tribal resource management and co-stewardship approaches but may also require a fundamental shift in forestry education. A sample of U.S. undergraduate forestry curricula revealed that while there is interest in including more Indigenous knowledge in the future, most courses in forestry majors lack Indigenous knowledge inclusion. These results can help foster new conversations and changes that can encourage the inclusion of more Indigenous knowledge in forestry curricula and natural resource management more broadly. To everyone who encouraged me and wouldn’t let me quit. Especially my parents, who said I could be anything I wanted to be as long as it was legal. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Emily Silver, for all of the countless hours and work she put into guiding me during my PhD journey. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. David Rothstein, Dr. Kyle Whyte, and Dr. Estrella Torrez. Your endless support, guidance, and patience helped me through this journey and helped me reach this monumental achievement. To the friends I have made in the Forestry Department, both past and present for making MSU feel like a home away from home. My graduate studies would not have been possible without the funding provided by the Michigan State University National Needs Fellowship, the Michigan State University Plant Science Fellowship, the Department of Forestry Carol C. Gustafson and Gary S. Murphy Endowed Scholarship, for which I am most grateful. To Steven Thomas, I want to give a very big thank you. Without you I never would have ended up at Michigan State, but one conversation at the National Conference for the American Indian Science and Engineering Society changed my life in ways I will never be able to explain. To all of my Michigan friends who became like family, thank you for encouraging me every step of the way and being a positive influence in my life. Finally, to my family, I would not have made it this far without your continued love and support, always pushing me to go after what I want and to never give up. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 INDIGENOUS NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE GREAT LAKES REGION NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES ..............................13 2.1 Abstract..........................................................................................................................13 2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................13 2.3 Methods..........................................................................................................................20 2.4 Results ............................................................................................................................21 2.5 Discussion ......................................................................................................................37 CHAPTER 3 PERSPECTIVE: COMMUNITY CAPACITY AS CRITICAL PRECURSOR TO KNOWLEDGE CO-PRODUCTION ..................................................................................42 3.1 Abstract ..........................................................................................................................42 3.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................42 3.3 Methods ..........................................................................................................................49 3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................52 3.5 Discussion ......................................................................................................................54 CHAPTER 4 ARE FORESTRY BS CURRICULA IN US UNIVERSITIES COMPATIBLE WITH TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE OF FORESTS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT? .......................................................................................................................56 4.1 Abstract ..........................................................................................................................56 Introduction ...................................................................................................................56 4.2 4.3 Methods ..........................................................................................................................63 4.4 Results ............................................................................................................................64 4.5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................67 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................70 WORKS CITED...........................................................................................................................72 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................87 APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONS ....................................................................................88 APPENDIX C TEXTBOOKS LISTED IN SYLLABI ............................................................89 vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Satoru Nakagawa (2017) stated that growing up, they never knew they were Indigenous, and now knowing that they are a member of a group that has been continuously colonized, marginalized, and politicized, they often do not feel as if they can take up space to speak their mind on current issues, because they are unsure if what they are saying is for the tribe, or for themselves. Coming from a mixed family myself, as a Mexican, Navajo, and White person, I want to begin this dissertation by positioning myself in relation to this research and show my connection to the material. Growing up, I always wanted to get more involved in my Native culture and community and I am always trying to better understand my place in this community, knowing that I am what Brayboy and Deyhle (2000) consider an insider-outsider, having not fully grown up in the culture yet still a part of it. Understanding this, as well as the historical harms that researchers have committed against Indigenous communities, I want to remain mindful of my position as a researcher in this community and be careful how I approach topics, research, and data collection, while also remaining sensitive to these ideas and wanting to conduct research in a positive way. This is what drives the type of research that I want to conduct, and my interest in understanding the conflicts and potential of integration between Indigenous knowledge and Western science. Often, studies that have been conducted on Indigenous people's lives and land have been done from the colonial perspective of Western science (Getty, 2010). Western science research is based on a system of colonialism that places it at the top of the hierarchy in what is considered credible and valid epistemology, creating a system of ‘othering’ different scientific methodologies (Smith, 2021). This creates an environment where even research done by 1 Indigenous scholars is done with the knowledge that all work and methodology must be viewed and scrutinized through this lens of Western science as a continued act of dominance, colonization, and othering (Nakagawa, 2017). As Nakagawa (2017) points out, understanding of where this dominance and control over what is and is not considered scientific research, stems from the history and design of western research itself. The history of colonization has cultivated a regime of Western Eurocentric hegemony that controls these research environments and continuously marginalizes other ways of knowing, including that of Indigenous research methodologies (Ryder et. al., 2020). Even when universities border or are situated on Indigenous lands university staff, faculty, and professors often do not invest or interact with those communities (Mihesuah, 2004). However, despite this apparent dichotomy, both Indigenous and Western knowledge bases stem from similar ideals and have similar motivations. Indigenous knowledge (IK) and Western Science (WS) are both rooted in relationships and use observations as central practices of research and knowledge gathering (Wilson, 2014; Marin and Bang, 2018). In science-based research, Indigenous knowledge and Western Science can both contribute to the larger area of study focused on contemporary ecosystem management, but through potentially different pathways (Emery et al., 2014). They are similar in that they rely on observations, teachings from others, and a connection with the subject matter, though IK and WS scholars may connect in different ways. There is a process of analyzing and judging the results gathered and using them in some manner, and both have their own criteria of whether these observations portray an accurate description of what was observed (Emery et. al., 2014). This knowledge is then continuously re-evaluated to ensure it still represents an accurate description of observations made (Akena, 2012). In this way, both knowledge bases are rooted in 2 relational and theoretical observations and practices with a system of checks and balances (Boisselle, 2016). Due to the similarity of these knowledge bases and the similar motivations that both IK and WS have, scholars have questioned whether they can be combined, and what type of collaborations would lead to stronger natural resource management. An increasing global human population has led to pressure on natural resources and more competition between individuals and organizations at many levels of society, not only for the resources themselves but the markets for these products as well (Cumming et. al., 2006). To better understand these systems, theories that couple human and natural systems have been advanced to evaluate one whole system and the feedback loops contained within (An, 2012). Coupled systems theory has been useful in examining a wide range of natural resource management, conservation, planning, and allocation issues (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). This approach may also be useful to examine the effects of climate change on Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples may feel the effects of climate change in a disproportionate manner, experiencing stronger effects than other groups, if they are more reliant on natural resources impacted by perturbations in climate (Wyllie de Echeverria and Thornton, 2019). Indigenous communities are one of the most impacted communities when it comes to the effects of climate change (Merrill, 2013). Many Indigenous livelihoods depend primarily on the health of the environment which is currently experiencing dramatic climatic events such as larger and more frequent forest fires, drought, extreme floods, and vegetation die-off (Lastra Landa and Bueno, 2021). This affects not only their livelihoods and subsistence for life, but also their cultural health as well. The deep-rooted connection that Indigenous peoples have with the environment is also threatened by climate change and as the environment is degraded, so too is the culture connected to it (Merrill, 2013). An example of this can be seen in the Siberian arctic 3 where climate change has interrupted traditional food source migration patterns decreasing access to traditional foods, which affects the Indigenous community’s diet, health, and their connection to culture (Andronov et. al., 2021). However, researchers are becoming more and more interested in utilizing Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge to help combat these environmental effects, as well as utilizing it to support sustainable management (Molnár and Babai, 2021). Researcher engagement with Indigenous knowledge (IK) is usually comprised of short-term projects that focus on community involvement and fieldwork, but stronger and more long-term collaboration with Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge is needed (Molnár and Babai, 2021). A study done by David- Chavez and Gavin (2018), found that a majority of the research conducted in Indigenous communities (83%) has been done with extractive purposes, where researchers obtain knowledge from these communities without their involvement. Many of these research projects (39-56%) were done with no contractual, or limited contractual, engagement of the Indigenous community, creating short term projects that rarely (16% of all projects reviewed) aid the Indigenous community in terms of outcomes and outputs (David-Chavez and Gavin, 2018). One way that we can avoid extractive processes when working with Indigenous communities is by combining IK and WS. One such way of combining these knowledge systems is through social ecological systems that utilize both knowledge bases for natural resource management. Social Ecological Systems (SES) are multilevel systems that model the connections and responses provided by essential services to society, such as food, water, and energy (Biner et. al., 2013). The purpose of using an SES model is to understand humans and nature through an interdisciplinary viewpoint where humans and nature are part of the same system and influence each other (Gain et. al., 2020). According to Schlüter et. al. (2012) there are two main tenets of 4 SES models, these are (1) to better understand feedbacks between social and ecological systems; and (2) to compose management guidance. Typically, natural resource management literature that couples social and ecological systems often does so by focusing mainly on the social or mainly on the ecological side of the system, but this is only a partial look at the larger picture of environmental systems (Folke et. al., 2005). As a model of systems, SES was developed because of growing awareness that understanding the human-nature relationship requires a different theoretical approach, particularly given global change affecting both human and natural communities. Therefore, SES couples humans and nature to form interactive feedback loops that incorporate cultural values and environmental concerns in addition to ecological outcomes into one model of the system to be studied (Liu et. la., 2007). These feedback loops help stakeholders see the larger ecological system that incorporates human dimensions to build new knowledge, create new solutions, and encourage stronger social networks to tackle complex issues. All resources used and influenced by humans are embedded within these complex SESs (Ostrom, 2009). Without looking at both the human dimensions of natural resource management and the environmental influences we cannot accurately develop and implement sustainable methods of environmental and natural resource management (Folke et. al., 2005). Due to their integrated nature, SESs are made of multiple systems and variables within subsystems with their own variables and subsystems (Ostrom, 2009). These subsystems are composed of the resource system, units, users, and governing bodies that are separable but interactive and produce outcomes which then feedback into the system (Ostrom, 2009). While IK and SES have similar outcomes and basic groundwork they do vary. Such as the relationship between humans and nature within these systems. In SES systems, this relationship is more geared towards owner and property, as is typical of settler norms, and sets 5 these environmental systems as anthropocentric, where humans are at the center of the system (Tuck et. al., 2014). On the other hand, IK sets humans as a natural part of the system and not central, but as an equal and mutual variable (Baynes, 2016). Historically, when scientists have tried to combine different scientific knowledge systems, they found that they will come to know a vast amount about a very limited area of knowledge, specializing in one aspect of a larger system (Dewalt, 1994). From this specialization, they can then understand the mechanisms by which that specialization works, developing this knowledge through the scientific method and the knowledge produced will be transferred across different systems (DeWalt, 1994). However, this transference to other systems is only tangentially transferrable, applying to systems and situations that are like the original (DeWalt, 1994). We can see a contrast to this limited area specialization of common scientific knowledge systems like WS by looking at IKs place-based focus. IK seeks to get an understanding of the ecosystem as a whole with no specific specializations developed, however, this often prevents information being transferable to other ecosystems, and therefore not generalizable (Verma et. al., 2016). IK is more aimed toward environmental sustainability for the sake of continuance of the system itself without monetary gain or influence (Molnár and Babai, 2021). Coupled systems, like SESs, contain different levels of ability to maintain similar structures and functionality after disturbance regimes, like the generational knowledge of IK that understands systems and offers solutions to adapt to these same disturbances (Liu et. al., 2007). SES and IK understand that these systems are not static, they are constantly changing and evolving over time that the knowledge needs to keep up with (Liu et. al., 2020). It is important to note that both of these systems are constrained by the way that the knowledge holders have been 6 conditioned to think and the way that they live (DeWalt, 1994). For instance, IK is a deeply cultural knowledge system and that cultural background dictates how knowledge is gathered, understood, and passed on (Baynes, 2016). Due to the slow changes in the environment the impacts of IK and SES changes are also slow to be seen due to the non-linear time lag that occurs between these human-nature interactions, where human changes make an impact, but that impact is not seen for some amount of time (Liu et. al., 2007). These time lags cannot be ignored, it takes time and effort to build up trusting and respecting partnerships in these systems, but also to develop meaningful and mutual benefits to establish deeper ecological impacts within them (Molnár and Babai, 2021). Both SES and IK are focused on involving society in understanding changes within the system and keeping a focus on a sustainable future. Ecologists and conservationists are beginning to see that IK is a vital part of understanding and managing natural resources and biodiversity (Molnár and Babai, 2021). SES could be used to better map out and understand the reciprocal nature of IK in ecological systems using feedback loops (Binder et. al., 2013). These feedback loops can map out the long- and short-term impacts of human interactions on natural resources within a system (Liu et. al., 2007). More than that, they can map out and explain the different types of feedback loops within and between the ecological and social systems and at different scales (Binder et. al., 2013). SES modeling could change how IK is thought of and incorporated into science at various levels including academic and field settings through the concept of co-management and knowledge co- production. Co-management of natural resources has been on the rise as a potential means to combat conflicts between Indigenous entities and state governments, this desire to bridge the gap 7 between Indigenous peoples and government can increase efficiency of knowledge production and co-production could benefit not only local communities, but scientific research, filling in gaps and helping to make ecological connections (Molnár and Babai, 2021; Natcher et. al., 2005). Indigenous knowledge, though diverse and locally rooted to specific places and regions, shares similar worldviews where ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology are interconnected through various relationships (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). This sharing of baser ideas opens up the potential for knowledge co-production and co-management. Indigenous knowledge combines the different technologies and practices that have been used by Indigenous communities to adapt and survive to any change in the environment. This is due to the deeply rooted connection that these communities have with the environment themselves, they are not outsiders looking in, they are in and one with the environment, which highlights the holistic nature of their knowledge base (Handayani et al., 2018). This knowledge is created through the direct interaction with an environment and studying the changes and consistencies of the environment over time, creating a place-based focus, and then passing that knowledge to future generations through storytelling, practice, and cultural activities. This integration of self with the environment allows Indigenous peoples to continue to play a vital role in protecting and preserving the different processes that nature requires to survive, ensuring their survival as well. By coupling SES and IK we can create adaptive co-management systems that are flexible enough to be customized to specific locations and situations at different levels (Folke et. al., 2005). 8 Figure 1.1. Flowchart of feedback loops in an SES depicting interactions between variables in a system. In this flowchart (Figure 1.1) arrows are used to express interactions between variables. Our natural resource interaction (such as water quality management, game population management, timber harvesting, etc.) that is the focus of the model is at the center of the flowchart and is affected by and affects local governing bodies, Indigenous use, natural resource units, and the natural resource system. Higher governing bodies are affected by both the local governments and the outcomes of the effects of the outcomes, in a seemingly endless feedback loops where the interactions feedback into the same loops with new interactions. The outcomes, or effects and feedbacks of these loops, also affect the natural resource system and the units. The cause-and-effect relationship of the flowchart provided is a starting point for understanding the interactions on a natural resource system with an emphasis on Indigenous societal involvement. 9 To be of any use, this diagram would need to have some definitions and specifics. For instance, instead of natural resource, we could focus solely on birch bark which has a strong cultural connection to the Anishinaabe people of the Great Lakes Region and is also a timber product. Indigenous use would then have to be separated into sections of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) management and cultural use, and same with local governing body use. The next phase of this diagram would look something like Figure 2. From this point to further understand what actors, stakeholders, and variables are at play would require data collection. Through the use of controlled interviews of persons both tribal and non-tribal who have some interaction with this species of tree specifically we can better understand what level of interaction they have, what control they have over this species, and what management practices they are using. Through these interviews we can gauge how much timber is harvested from logging, how much is harvested for cultural practices, what type of management both groups impart on this resource and to what extent. From this we can better map out what relationships we are seeing and what feedback loops are occurring from each group, tribal and non-tribal, that may be interacting that the groups do not see. From that we can then suggest better management practices to effectively reach the desired outcomes or inform both sides of how to better manage together. 10 Figure 1.2. SES feedback loop of birch bark management and use. The goal of this dissertation is to explore the potential and efficacy of combining Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science. In chapter two (Indigenous Natural Resource Managers’ Perspectives in the Great Lakes Region) I outline the key natural resource concerns facing Indigenous natural resource managers in the Great Lakes Region. Using semi-structured interviews, I was able to assess the differences these managers see in tribal and non-tribal natural resource management, and then explored the potential for knowledge coproduction. This chapter focuses on some of the differences between IK and WS and how, in practice and real-world settings, these knowledge bases can be combined. In chapter three (Perspective: Community Capacity as Critical Precursor to Knowledge Co-Production) I further explore how knowledge co-production can be an involved process that requires more time investment among the contributors. This chapter explores the potential research fatigue and wariness during a knowledge co-production process that addresses 11 community capacity issues and explores how relationships are built between researchers and communities. This case study focuses on a broad arctic community in the Yukon, describing what happens when a team from ‘away’ tries to engage in knowledge co-production in a very early stage, and how lessons might guide knowledge co-production efforts in the future. In chapter four (Are Forestry BS Curricula in US Universities compatible with traditional Indigenous knowledge of forests and forest management?) I analyze the current lack of research on the existence and prevalence of Indigenous knowledge in Forestry curricula in universities in the United States. This research uses survey and syllabi analysis to understand the prevalence of Indigenous knowledge in Forestry curricula and in what capacity. By understanding the prevalence and context of the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge in curricula we can better understand how to further the advancement of this knowledge and where the gaps in knowledge may be. With this assessment, we can potentially encourage universities and institutions of higher education to rework their curriculum to incorporate Indigenous knowledge. In chapter 5 I summarize the overarching findings of my dissertation. I provide a final look at the benefits that utilizing knowledge co-production and providing more Indigenous knowledge in Forestry curricula can create stronger natural resource management in the future. 12 CHAPTER 2 INDIGENOUS NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE GREAT LAKES REGION NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES 2.1 Abstract The Great Lakes Region is home to 27 federally recognized tribal groups. Climate change is projected to increase temperatures by 2-9°F, and tribes in the region face unique risks and concerns for their natural resource management. In this study, we seek to understand these unique concerns and how tribes in the region are affected by and managing their natural resources, as well as understanding their capacity for knowledge co-production. Using semi- structured interviews of tribal natural resource managers in the region, we outline the key natural resource concerns, the differences in tribal and non-tribal natural resource management, and the potential for knowledge coproduction. From this work we discovered that climate change is the largest natural resource stressor that natural resource managers are concerned about in the region, tribal and non-tribal managers have differing values that lead to conflicts in collaboration and focus, and that while knowledge co-production is already occurring in some spaces, more needs to be done to utilize both parties’ values and goals. 2.2 Introduction There are 27 federally recognized tribal groups in the Great Lakes Watershed (Table 2.1), including the U.S. states of Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin. These tribal communities are facing disproportionate impacts from climate change, such as sea-level rise and increase in intense weather changes (David-Chavez and Gavin, 2018). Tribal communities have a strong connection to place and land (and specific treaty rights) that prevents them from adapting to climate change affects by relocating. The legal protections provided by sovereignty, which are tied to location for validity (i.e. within a reservations boundaries) means that tribal 13 citizens are unable to relocate if environmental resources become unsustainable or in extreme cases uninhabitable (Tuck et. al., 2014). If a tribe is federally recognized, and depends on that recognition economically, culturally, and to maintain sovereignty, then they are limited in their ability to relocate if natural resources are depleted or degraded. Tribes in the Great Lakes Region likewise must contend with the effects of climate change but face significant challenges in management of the natural resources that they rely on. Tribal nations are on the frontlines of natural resource issues. Their cultural connection to, and dependence on the land means that they feel the effects of ecological changes more intensely than other communities. Moreover, natural resources often form the basis of tribal treaty rights. Thus, the impacts from climate change limits many subsistence-based tribes from accessing traditional foods (food sovereignty) and forest products, such as maple groves, as well as threatening their Indigenous knowledge from being passed on if the cultural practice is lost. This connection to the land encompasses a knowledge of the land and the environment that has been passed down through generations and is referred to as Indigenous Knowledge (Bala and Gheverghese Joseph, 2016). Indigenous communities are diverse in their collective cultural identities, represented by different languages, history, teachings, and knowledge (Singel, 2018). This Indigenous knowledge is place based, indicating that the knowledge that these communities have obtained has been formed over numerous generations tied to the land on which they live (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). Using ecology as an example (the study of biotic and abiotic relationships), Indigenous knowledge offers a deeper and nuanced understanding, based on to the need for tribal groups to adapt and survive within their environments through generations (Morishima and Mason, 2017). Tribal communities have developed specific place-based knowledge based on 14 first-hand witness of changes and shifts over time (Lewis, 1995). Indigenous knowledge departs from western epistemology and methodology by removing the need for observations to be repeatable, predictable, and therefore generalizable beyond a specific case (Peiser, 2021). Indigenous place-based knowledge provides for specific and informed decision making that focuses on the trends and observations that have been made by these communities in localized areas (Lawler and Bullock, 2017). It is the lived experience of what works and has been observed over an extended period and is as varied as the people who hold knowledge. Therefore, to avoid homogenized knowledge production, wherein Western Modern Science (WMS) catalogues itself as the only valid method of research epistemology and invalidates all other epistemological practices, it is important to utilize the experience-based knowledge of the Indigenous peoples who have lived on and cared for these lands (Tunón et. al., 2015; Boisselle, 2016). This knowledge derives from the various origin stories that each individual tribe has that connects them to the land they come from (Lewis, 1995). Indigenous knowledge focuses on this deeper connection with place, non-human beings, and plant relatives that Western science is inherently lacking (Bala and Gheverghese, 2016). Tribes in the Great Lakes Region use this generational experience-based knowledge in their natural resource management but are directly impacted by the decisions being made by non- tribal resource managers who do not share the same knowledge base. An example of this can be seen in off-reservation pollution where non-tribal water managers support and enact mining practices that pollute the water ways that tribes rely on (Chief et al., 2016). While goals might be similar among tribes, there are different needs and processes that each tribe uses for management implementation (Schwabenlander et. al., 2022). Tribal and non-tribal government-based natural resource management differs in management implementation and focus where tribal natural 15 resource management is guided by community-based values that are connected to culture and practices that have developed over generations (Schwabenlander et. al., 2022). In a special issue of the Journal of Forestry Michal Dockry and Serra Hoagland (2017) outline the different ways that tribal forests are managed, some managing forest lands themselves without help from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and some using the BIA for majority of funding and staff. Large scale forestry in the US, however, has been dominated by a process called adaptive management; the main tenets of adaptive management are to identify an issue in the environment, create a model of the environment system, decide on, and administer treatments and then monitor those treatments overtime and adjust as needed (Dunning, 2016). Many practitioners feel that government natural resource management will need to adopt a more place-specific management style in the future and create multi-jurisdictional management, or co-management, to meet the increased capacity demands that are currently not being met (Lemieux et. al., 2013). Adaptive management is also increasingly used in the face of a changing climate, an issue which will impact all lands and all communities that rely on natural resources. Global temperatures are expected to rise by 1.5°C by 2050 and lead to significant environmental degradation (Callison, 2020). Due to its abundance of fresh water, the Great Lakes Region is viewed as a climate refuge, a buffered area that will remain habitable in the climate change predictions (Warren and Vermette, 2020). However, over the past century, the upper Midwest has been showing a significant warming trend, especially in the winter season (December-February), and the frost-free growing season has increased one to two weeks. This warming trend has been accompanied by an increase in annual precipitation where seasonal precipitation has increased during fall, winter, and spring, but has declined during summer (Janowiak et. al., 2014). Of the five Great Lakes, Lake Superior is warming the fastest and is 16 currently of the highest concern. Under current warming projections, Lake Superior is set to experience significant biological and physical changes that will alter fishing, coastal habitability, and water quality, among other significant impacts (Matsumoto et. al., 2019). What has not been investigated extensively is how climate change will impact the Indigenous communities that call the Great Lakes region home. Many of the culturally important trees that offer medicine, materials, or spiritual significance, to tribes in the Great Lakes Region are experiencing a significant change to their range of suitable habitat (Vose et. al., 2012). Factors contributing to the concern over a rapidly changing environment that the tribes have been noticing for years include the increase in rainfall but drier seasons overall and an increase in frequency of natural disasters (Janowiak et. al., 2014). Due to the history and place-based expertise of Indigenous knowledge, many Western scientists are looking to utilize knowledge co-production to build better solutions for climate change (Bala and Gheverghese Joseph, 2016). Knowledge co-production (KCP) combines Indigenous and Western science to create stronger management outcomes that address current environmental challenges facing the world (Kruijf et. al., 2020). Indigenous peoples, due to their extensive history and lived experiences, have a more holistic and deeper connection with their natural environment, having had to manage their surroundings to sustain their populations for millennia. Their insight and stories can provide deeper understanding for natural resource managers (McGregor, 2014). KCP also can build stronger collaborative efforts and relationships on an inter-tribal scale and with non-tribal agencies, such as state and federal organizations (Tara, 2005). In Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Kimmerer (2013) notes that weaving two knowledge systems may benefit both parties. “Science and traditional knowledge may ask different 17 questions and speak different languages, but they may converge when both truly listen to the plants” (p.165). Kimmerer (2015) goes on to discuss the “cooperation not competing” lifestyle of the three sisters: corn, squash, and beans; that are planted together and feed each other with reciprocity, balance, and harmony through nutrient sharing and structural support. “Being among the sisters provides a visible manifestation of what a community can become when its members understand and share their gifts” (p. 134). Practicing effective and meaningful KCP, or the collaborative process of producing knowledge that involves multiple partners and stakeholders in an equal and equitable manner, has the potential to challenge, integrate, and transform pre- existing knowledge to benefit both academic and public sectors (Harvey, Cochrane, and Epp, 2018). As natural resource management becomes increasingly complex, tribal nations increasingly hire or work with natural resource professionals to help them manage and steward their resources. However, this relationship differs from that of a non-tribal landowner. This research explores Indigenous natural resource manager perspectives on the pressing natural resource issues currently affecting the Great Lakes Region (including climate change) and the potential for utilizing KCP in natural resource management. This research seeks to add to the extensive body of research emphasizing the need for and importance of including tribal communities in KCP and applying it to the specific tribal communities located in the Great Lakes Region. This work can be used as a starting point for conversing and working with those communities. 18 Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan New York Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Sokaogon Chippewa Community – Mole Lake Band Forest County Potawatomi Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Oneida Nation of Wisconsin Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Hannahville Indian Community Bay Mills Indian Community Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Match-e-be-nash-he-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians Nottawaseepi Huron Band of Potawatomi Tuscarora Indian Nation Tonawanda Band of Seneca Cayuga Nation Onondaga Nation Oneida Indian Nation Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Table 2.1. List of federally recognized tribal nations in the Great Lakes Watershed representing the Great Lakes Region. 19 2.3 Methods From the Fall of 2021 through the Fall of 2022, sixteen in-depth semi-structured research interviews were recorded with natural resource professionals who work with/within Indigenous communities in the Great Lakes Region. Majority of participants were members of tribal communities, except for one who has an extensive history of working with a tribe. Interviews were conducted online, via the Zoom software platform. Interviews were continued until data saturation was reached; the final two interview datasets did not generate any new insights (Vasileiou et. al., 2018). Interviews were conducted with the aid of an eleven-question interview instrument (Appendix A). Interview candidates were included if they worked in natural resource management and if their work took place in the Great Lakes region. These interviews were used to explore pressing natural resource issues that tribes are facing in the Great Lakes Region, what professionals think are driving these issues, possible solutions, and asses their perspectives on knowledge co-production – whether it is of any interest or could lead to stronger management outcomes. Sampling was purposive and began with connections in natural resource management from [removed for peer review] and then by asking interview participants to provide names of other professionals they felt might have information or interest in this topic and would be willing to participate. Individuals that met the requirements were contacted. Institutional Review Board approval from [removed for peer review] was granted prior to beginning this study and participants were asked to give verbal consent at the beginning of the interview. Interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes. All interview audio was transcribed, removing identifying information. 20 Coding was performed using NVivo12 software using grounded theory in two stages: initial in vivo coding and focused thematic coding. Initial coding gave brief outlines of thematic elements and focused coding refined those thematic elements into main themes of the data. These main themes were then broken down into codes and subcodes that define the context and interpretation of each main theme. Using an inter-rater reliability test, codes were reviewed to ensure accuracy and consistency of data analysis. To protect the anonymity of participants, per their request, all names and identifiers have been removed. 2.4 Results Main Themes Codes Subcodes Natural Resource Concerns Climate Change Connectedness Subsistence Water Tribal vs. Non-Tribal Distributive impacts of climate change Everyone will be affected Everything is connected Environment changing CWD Water quality Water security Warming lakes Everyone will be affected Same concerns different effects Management Perspectives Cultural considerations Gaps in Western Science natural resource management Off reservation effects Non-Native Support Knowledge Co- Production Unique situation Tribes on the front lines Removed perspective Lack of respect for other ways of knowing Pollution Allyship Potential to collaborate and partner Benefits Concerns Table 2.2. Main themes, codes and subcodes extracted from the qualitative interview data of natural resource managers in the Great Lakes Region. 21 2.4.1 Theme 1: Natural Resource Concerns Natural Resource concerns were identified as concerns that participants felt were affecting the products and services normally found in their local/jurisdictional environments. Participants had similar overall concerns that were grouped into the main codes of climate change, connectedness, subsistence, and water. Climate change was identified as the physical and atmospheric changes occurring in the environment; Connectedness refers to the way that environment elements (water, animals, plants, soil) and community (the people) are connected; Subsistence is defined as what the community uses for nutrition and economic income; and Water is identified throughout as both quality and quantity. 2.4.1.1 Climate change Every participant interviewed mentioned climate change as the biggest natural resource concern. The term climate change was described as an umbrella that encompasses environmental concerns brought on by a warming climate and associated impacts. A specialist in traditional ecological knowledge stated that it is difficult to anticipate the changes that we will see in the environment. Focusing on climate change as an issue is difficult because: “Climate change isn’t just about global warming or things like that. It has to do with everything shifting in the environment and the natural disasters that are occurring and things like flooding that are occurring more frequently”. In addition to this, climate change impacts everything in the environment, “it impacts not only the water and the wetlands and the wildlife and the plants, it really impacts everything”. Tribal members interviewed are noticing changes occurring in their environments and are increasingly worried about the future. One participant that is focused on renewable energy mentioned that the environment is seeing more intense sporadic rainfall, but that the climate is 22 getting drier with these rainstorms not providing the necessary gradual moisture that is needed. This is affecting lakes, rivers, waterbeds, as well as plants and animals that rely on regular moisture in the environment. And this is then exacerbated, according to participants, by human influence. One participant that teaches about environmental science and society remarked that “earth's climate is different, and we are now, as a world, as a global society, invested in that difference because of the changes that we've already done”. Participants that produce maple sugar have also noticed that the tree species composition is shifting and unfortunately tribes are unable to shift with them. This shift is creating new challenges, such as knowing when to harvest, what to prepare, and how to adjust to changing seasons, such as the season for harvesting sap for maple syrup. “Recognizing that when your identity and your cultures and your practices and your ceremonies are all linked with those things that are around you, and if they walk on but you can't in that same way, what does that do?” In the face of climate change and other environmental changes that occur, participants feel that tribal nations are fighting to maintain their history and their identity. 2.4.1.2 Connectedness Underneath the broad Natural Resource Concerns theme, most interviewees mentioned the concept that everything is connected. When one natural resource gets impacted by human disturbance other resources are also affected. “We know everything is connected in creation and it’s just like you throw a rock in a pond and it ripples out right? When one gets affected, it affects the next thing and the next thing gets affected, the next thing.” 23 Climate change and its effects are an example of this connectedness. Participants expressed that everything in the environment is experiencing some kind of shift. One producer of maple syrup noted that “those things might be changing on their own over time, but the changing climate seems to be exacerbating those changes, and … we're seeing them happen more quickly on the landscape”. One participant pointed out that there are more wildfires each year, bringing with it an increase in air pollution, changes in wildlife behavior, and changing the natural flora of the area affected. There is also notice of an increase in invasive species, mainly fish and plants, which are outcompeting, and leading to a decrease, in native species. The most visible change that has been noted has been the health of trees, which are expected to be long-term. Birch trees, which have a significant cultural and subsistence connection to tribes in the Great Lakes Region according to participants as it is a cornerstone of their survival through harsh winters and is used for baskets, canoes, and medicine, are estimated to be severely impacted based on current climate change predictions. If these trees disappear, participants fear a cultural connection will also be lost. Maple trees, which are also culturally and economically significant, are showing a shift in the ideal time to tap for sap. According to maple sugar producers interviewed, sugar maples need extremely cold nights followed by warm days, but this time frame is shifting and occurring sooner than it should, which participants note is limiting how much sap the trees produce. This is already creating a cultural shift within tribal communities that is adding to these concerns of connectivity to the environment and to cultural practices. “Wild rice is perhaps the most sensitive plant to climate change of all the plants we’ve investigated so far. And so, the reason the Ojibwa people are here is because of wild rice.” As a climate change sensitive species and a culturally significant species, the majority of participants express concern for the future of wild rice in cultural practices as well as subsistence for future 24 generations. Some producers are concerned that more families are falling into colonial ways of thinking and doing and are leading to fewer families continuing with cultural traditions. 2.4.1.3 Subsistence Subsistence hunting is currently being threatened by new diseases, such as Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Chronic Wasting Disease is a prion disease affecting deer that eventually leads to mortality. This disease is causing tension in natural resource management due to its high infection rate among herds and the length of time that it can remain in an environment to infect other deer. Many managers and tribal communities are concerned about the effect it will have on game hunting and community health. With “the increase in CWD we have tribal hunters who are refusing to hunt. Not knowing whether it’s safe or not to eat those deer” and trying to avoid the potential health risk. Almost half of all participants mentioned CWD as a great concern for tribal communities because deer in the Great Lakes Region is one of the main subsistence food staples, with many families relying on hunted venison for protein instead of store-bought meat. Subsistence fishing is also a point of concern for tribes in the Great Lakes Region. A conservation specialist in the region identified that the tribes are “just trying to protect … [the] water for ceremonial uses, subsistence fishing, [and] wild rice” and maintain those pieces of cultural heritage. In addition to this, “a larger percentage of tribal economies are based on fishing than the percentage of non-tribal economies based on fishing.” One of the greatest concerns for tribes in the region is cool water fisheries. As one participant noted, “Cool water fisheries, walleye fisheries are going away because of invasive species and temperature increases in their cool water lakes”. 25 2.4.1.4 Water Water quality and quantity in the Great Lakes Region is also a major concern for local tribal groups and water scarcity is becoming a prominent fear. Every participant voiced their concerns over water. A natural resource manager for one of the local tribes outlined how historical practices and management decisions are still affecting water quality today: “So, we have [mining] basins from iron ore mines where they are draining into rivers that are draining into Lake Superior. That is affecting us. We have new mines that are going in that want to use the same methodologies in creating [those same] basons for the next 50 years or 25 years and are giving no closure of those places. They call it reclamation but even the reclaimed areas are still leaking mercury. And so, that’s affecting our fish. That’s affecting our water. That’s affecting us.” The lakes are impacted by this pollution and are also being affected by “other municipalities not abiding by [our] clean water … standards”. “When you have a farm up the road that’s … creating runoff that’s negatively affecting your surface water and ground water” it creates a larger problem down the road. And many feel that most of these damaging effects are the result of “corporate interest” that is not taking water quality and quantity into account. 2.4.2 Theme 2: Differences between tribal and non-tribal management from Indigenous perspectives Throughout the interviews, there were noticeable differences in how tribal and non-tribal groups were described. This section analyzes how tribal groups viewed the differences in this management through the sub-themes’ distributive impacts of climate change, management perspectives, perceived gaps in Western Science natural resource management, off-reservation effects, and non-native support. 26 2.4.2.1 Distributive Impacts of Climate Change While every participant interviewed mentioned climate change as a major concern for tribes in the region, how tribal and non-tribal groups experience it, or will experience it, is not always the same. Participants noted that tribes, due to their subsistence living lifestyle, are typically on the front lines of climate change impacts, noticing and adapting to changes sooner than most non-tribal groups. Wild rice, which is a major component of culture in the Great Lakes Region is under threat from the effects of climate change and “is perhaps the most sensitive plant to climate change”. Over half of all participants expressed concern over the abundance and health of wild rice in the region. “Because of things like drought and flooding our wild rice beds are being severely impacted and there are not as many areas that we can go and harvest rice… So, for us with wild rice that is part of our migration story. We were told to travel West from the East to the area where food grows on water and that is this specific region. So, because of that shift if we lose wild rice we will lose part of our identity, our story. Who we are as Ojibwe people because we are directly connected to wild rice. A lot of that is a result of climate change.” One participant noted that the tribes are almost always the first to notice these changes in the environment due to their connection to the land and the environment. They see these changes happening but feel like those outside of the tribes are not paying attention to their concerns. As pointed out by a Traditional Ecological Specialist, “the people that don’t live that lifestyle can drive through a national forest that is nearby and the changes aren’t going to resonate with them…Because for them they are not fully dependent on those forests for survival”. Along this same thought, another participant noted that: 27 “Obviously we used to survive off of reading the lands and the birds around us telling us what to do and when. Now because of climate change and those shifts we are not able to as effectively know what we should be preparing for at what times.” 2.4.2.2 Management Perspectives Some participants believe that changes are inevitable, and that “this is a reality that no matter how much money you have, you cannot stop it.” There is a universal concern for natural resource issues, but the manifestations of those concerns are different. Participants remarked that tribal views on natural resources are more holistic, that tribes view nature as a relative that should be protected and that both human and non-human entities are all part of one greater ecosystem, while they remarked that non-tribal views generally focus on aesthetics or commodity-focused uses. These viewpoints then manifest in their decision making on natural resource management and land use. Participants note that some states tend to focus on profits and breaking things down into separate categories, such as ground water, stormwater, wildlife, and fisheries, and then breaks those categories into even smaller categories, such as big game and ducks under wildlife. However, they expressed that tribes, from their management perspectives, tend to view natural resources from a biocentric or kinship perspective, with a reciprocal relationship and responsibility that non-tribal resource managers don’t always perceive. One wildlife technician argued that while one particular state’s natural resource management style focuses on game and recreation goals (in addition to ecosystem health), the tribes manage in a more hands off approach that allows populations to ebb and flow naturally while altering hunting and harvesting practices accordingly each season. 28 An area of contention between tribal and non-tribal management that half of all interviewees mentioned is the Grey Wolf. Controversies over the Grey Wolf outline this difference in management values by the wolf’s on again off again relationship with the Endangered Species List (ESL). According to participants, the Grey Wolf is a culturally significant species for tribes in the region, and one tribal policy analyst explained that some states have been known to immediately initiate a wolf hunt once the Grey Wolf is delisted. This led to backlash from one tribe who, as a regional coordinator indicated, “[we] view the wolf as a brother and believe that what happens to the wolf populations will happen to [them]”. Tribes in the region view the wolf in a reciprocal relationship sense, where the wolf maintains a strong importance in ecosystem health and that their future is tied to that of the wolf, if the wolf is destroyed, it will mean a similar fate to that of the tribe. However, in Western society, one wildlife technician observed that the wolf is often portrayed as a villain or nuisance species. One of the biggest concerns that many mentioned was the difficulty in getting the states to acknowledge and uphold their legal obligations to consult with tribes on the management of wolves, stating that these wolf hunts were not based on science but on white male supremacy, remarking that in the dominant society, white males set the rules and have built the system to benefit their way of doing things and don’t take into consideration Indigenous ways of doing things. Many participants noted that Walleye is another good example of where different perspectives have created significant problems. One example given was the Walleye Wars which created conflict for tribal and non-tribal fishermen over how natural resources should be managed, that began in the 1980’s and lasted into the early 1990’s and was a culmination of a dispute over who had fishing and hunting rights in Wisconsin (Koban, 2020). During this 29 dispute, settler residents of Wisconsin protested tribal members practice to spearfishing of Walleyed Pike, a right the tribe held since treaties created in the 1800’s. A large portion of current tribal economies are based on fishing, as well as subsistence and ceremonial practices. However, it was noted that most non-tribal groups are “getting really scared again, the fear of ignorance there, saying, oh my gosh, the tribes are gonna take all fish out of our lakes”. Participants that work in the realm of tribal natural resources maintain that their focus is more heavily focused on “honoring relationships” with the environment and “that reciprocal relationship and that responsibility”. Their focus is on protecting the fish and maintaining those populations for the future, but the fear still persists. These differences in values and practices between tribal and non-tribal agencies are often accentuated by the barriers that tribes face which prevent projects and management plans from being implemented that, often, state and federal agencies don’t encounter. In addition to these differences, participants have expressed the difficulty in getting these agencies to acknowledge and respect tribal sovereignty. More than that, there was commentary that some state and federal agencies having legitimacy and power to help them get their voices be heard, but tribal nations are often met with legal threats, political roadblocks, and racism that prevents them from being heard. This is compounded by issues with treaty infringement – time and attention are spent on protecting treaty rights rather than actual management. One of the tribal natural resource managers commented that they are continuously trying to improve their water quality through various projects and protections, but outside groups often present opposition. “There are outside groups getting really scared again, the fear of ignorance there, saying, oh my gosh, the tribes are gonna take all fish out of our lakes.” This fear leads these non-tribal groups to push back against the tribes that are trying to protect the water and 30 resources. This lack of understanding and failure to listen to the tribes perpetuates miscommunication and discrimination. However, it was also noted that relationships between tribal and non-tribal communities are starting to improve due to programs dedicated to sharing knowledge and collaboration, but tribes need to be recognized and acknowledged for their robust natural resource programs and show that these programs are beneficial for all. 2.4.2.3 The gaps in Western Science natural resource management Western science, in the eyes of participants, is viewed as lacking a stronger connection to place. Often, scientific outputs are generalized or not localized to an area, and therefore lack the nuanced understanding needed for local stewardship. “Western science is always trying to generalize and create a kind of universal understandings”. Participants reiterated that each tribe has a creation story that places them in this world, in this place, on this land, and they believe that Western science is stifled by not looking at those creation stories and looking at the diversity that exists on the planet and what those stories can tell us about the environment. All participants, in some way, felt that Western science operates from a removed (also self-labeled as ‘objective’) perspective and that this approach breaks things down into component parts instead of looking at the whole picture. One natural resource manager remarked that scientists often propose work to be done on an area without ever having stepped foot on that land, while the Indigenous people have knowledge that is gained and expanded on from being on that land and connecting with that land creating a stronger connection and reciprocal relationship. This Anishinaabe belief was summarized as “I take care of you; you take care of me.” One environmental scientist that works with tribes took this further by stating that the “notion of sense of place is the piece that's been missing from a lot of conversations about climate change” and that research should be done from a place that focuses on the environment 31 and less on profit and economics. The land is “not going to be replaced from the places it is taken out” and participants noted that it is going to change the movement of the water and the movement of the species that rely on that land and water. There was an overwhelming feeling among participants that if we don’t change this system and its lack of respect of Indigenous knowledge, then it will continue to perpetuate. Consensus among participants is that Western science fails to see their perspective and has been condition to do so. Tribes must constantly explain who they are, where they come from, and that each tribe has their own unique culture, values, and pressing concerns to be addressed – a burden that is not faced by non-tribal communities. Most natural resources have multiple stakeholders and affected groups, however, when conflicts happen the tribes are almost always the first ones that face blame. Participants stated that they must closely monitor anti-Indian groups and groups that place blame on tribes because of the actions that they may take against the tribes, both politically and physically. One such issue that was brought up to illustrate this problem is cultural and ceremonial harvesting of out of season game, where tribal members can receive a special hunting permit, but non-tribal members cannot. Unfortunately, participants remark that it’s usually not so much about the resource, but about who is taking the resource. Another example participants shared is that tribes are often labeled as radicals for trying to ensure clean drinking water and healthy ecosystems for future generations because of this lack of understanding of tribal values and practices. One tribe’s historic preservation officer stated that environmental research in general appears to be lacking, arguing that when research is conducted it is done so with an outcome already in mind. “When we really look at research and who funds research, they’re looking for a particular outcome already. So, we have to start thinking differently of what we want to research and why we want to research it”. There is an overall feeling that new and evolving threats are not 32 being investigated as thoroughly as they should or producing practical solutions, such as Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAs, in water and climate change infrastructure. One participant stressed the need for more baseline data in all national forests and ceded territories because what tribes are seeing is that non-tribal agencies will: “…propose a project, it could be a mine, an asphalt plant, it could be as simple as a gravel pit. But what happens is they hold these zoning hearings at the township level, then they say oh there will be no impacts, or it will create a little impact and it's going to create all this economic impact so give us this variance again, let us do this project anyways. Then we have to fight this and somehow we have to prove that there is pollution but how do you prove that if you don’t have baseline data? You can only show what happened after”. A baseline data index would allow natural resource managers to see more changes in the environment and keep track of these changes over time. Many participants noted that more data was a critical need, and that building from actual data instead of modelling of what could happen, would be more impactful for decision making. 2.4.2.4 Off reservation effects Participants noted that much of the pollution on tribal reservations tends to come from off reservation. One participant shared their observation that in areas that are largely non- industrialized, local tribal communities have some of the highest rates of cancer in the area because of off-reservation practices. It was discussed that tribes are also dealing with the effects of climate change that they are not large contributors to. “Historically, it is not the tribes that are releasing an excess amount of greenhouse gasses, but we are the ones on the frontlines who have to deal with the biggest effects from it.” 33 A major off reservation example that one participant felt very strongly about were the oil pipelines. A tribal employee notes that oil from Canada passes through the US and then goes back into Canada so that Canada can avoid fees, since the oil is considered an import if routed through the US. They went on to state that these pipelines are known to leak, and this harms native communities without them seeing any benefit from oil profits. One pipeline leak, as discussed, contaminated the Kalamazoo River affecting local tribal communities. These oil leaks pollute water ways, destroy the environment, and tribal communities are often affected the most. One interviewer noted that tribes have always adapted to change, but some changes are happening too quickly and too severely for adjustment, such as pipeline failures and environmental degradation. 2.4.2.5 Non-Native Support A common need that participants mentioned was the need for non-native support, such as non-tribal fishing groups, organizations, and management entities. “A lot of non-native citizens are interested in supporting tribal people in their defense of the water, the wildlife, the landscapes” and that is important to achieving certain goals, but it needs to be done properly and respectfully. For instance, participants note that telling tribes what they need to do is less effective than approaching them as an ally by opening up communication and understanding their processes for management. “They … need to come be our allies and [understand] why we do what we do”. One wildlife coordinator expressed that: “Many non-native citizens feel that wolves should be on the landscape, but policies in some states don’t reflect that majority opinion.” However, they note that support is often met with caution as many non-native organizations will ask tribes for input on programs or projects but ignore the tribes’ values and goals, instead 34 focusing on checking a “consult” box. This can be frustrating and create additional roadblocks for tribal organizations. One way that tribes are trying to mitigate these roadblocks is through relationship and trust building between tribal and non-tribal groups. For example, one participant remarked, “I think [the] general strategy in … the project, the general strategy is around relationship building. So, you know, getting, or creating opportunities for people to learn more about tribal activities and efforts and [learn about] treaty rights and things like that in a way that's easy for them to [understand]”. Half of participants remarked that they are currently in the process of integrating and working with non-native groups and governments on certain projects to build that trust and develop those relationships. This is the basis of knowledge co-production and can potentially build stronger management plans and programming. 2.4.2.6 Knowledge Co-production For Indigenous peoples and tribes to maintain their sovereignty and fight for their natural resource management practices, they must be at the table, and they need to have an active and equal voice in the discussion. And one of the biggest ways that this is happening, and is supported by every participant interviewed, is by Knowledge Co-production. Participants feel that Indigenous knowledge has a strong purpose and has a place in just about every setting, it gives a new perspective that has a more holistic approach to management and using Indigenous and Western science together can help build stronger responses to pressing natural resource concerns. There needs to be a shift to the “Two Eyed Seeing” philosophy that was developed “by Albert Marshall, the Mi'kmaq elder, who describes Two Eyed Seeing as one lens looking at the world through Western science and one looking through Indigenous science”. Everything works in a system and being able to understand that system is something that 35 Western science and Indigenous knowledge both strive for. One participant laid out an explanation, that science describes how and Indigenous knowledge describes why. It creates an idea that “we’ll go down the river together, but we will be in our canoe, and you'll be in your boat, that separate but equal thing and that's how they had this agreement that was how we can live”. However, it was noted that this does not necessarily make it the tribes’ responsibility to share their knowledge for validation or to give it to someone else, but for everyone to come together, share their knowledge and participate in learning opportunities to broaden and expand their own understanding. Most participants mentioned that this type of collaboration and knowledge sharing is already occurring in some areas of natural resource management. It’s just a matter of “if we are acknowledging it and naming it right”. For example, one participant with an organization based in the Great Lakes Region has dedicated research to assessing climate vulnerability with local tribes and regional organizations. In this work they incorporate the teachings and importance of tribal culture into all aspects of their work. One participant noted that state and tribal managers collaborate on fish catch limits for their local regions. “[They do] their science and we do our science and then we come up with total allowable catch which we then have to agree on”. It was also mentioned that field biologists from state, tribal, and other environmental organizations are all “so in tuned with each other” as they focus on similar species, problems, and focus areas where they intersect. A consensus among participants is that they “try to do this [type of knowledge co-production] every day”. Walking in these two worlds of Western and Indigenous science, “if you’re going to be an effective natural resources manager in today’s multicultural society you need to know how to live and work and be successful within a multicultural perspective.” 36 2.5 Discussion In the Great Lakes Region, Indigenous natural resource managers are most concerned about the effects of climate change, the interconnectedness of the environment, subsistence, and water. This study has outlined the differences in how tribal and non-tribal groups view and deal with differences in managerial efforts with the distributive impacts of climate change, how they are exacerbated by the different perspectives and values in management practices that are perpetuated by the gaps in Western natural resource management, how non-tribal management practices affect tribal land and management, and how non-native support both helps and harms tribal efforts. Finally, this study explores how knowledge co-production can be a solution to alleviating some of these issues by bridging the gap between tribal and non-tribal natural resource managers and offer a collaborative effort for management that utilizes both parties’ values and goals. Knowledge co-production and communication is what builds up understanding and can make tribal and non-tribal agencies feel like they are actively contributing to the process and can create true reciprocity (Degai et al., 2022). The long-standing relationships that tribes have with the environment have fostered a deeper understanding of the system. Looking at science through the lens of tribal and non-tribal perspectives can create more effective and efficient management programs and, as a result, has the potential to shift the ecosystem around us in a more positive way (Morishima and Mason, 2017). Tribes are looking to be innovative, to be leaders, and to find that knowledge wherever they can to create a comprehensive and diverse knowledge base (Kruijf et. al., 2021). To reach the goal of successful KCP certain steps need to be taken, starting with creating equitable and meaningful relationships (Lemieux et. al., 2015). The goal of these relationships 37 should be to share knowledge and develop a more effective way to address the environmental concerns that we are seeing today. Acknowledging that there is no one size fits all in government to government (tribal to non-tribal) relationships, management, or collaborations is crucial to creating an open and integrated system of KCP (Kruijf et. al., 2021). Blending these different knowledge bases has the potential for stronger resource management where we can utilize data models in collaboration with Indigenous knowledge to promote more sustainable ways to co- exist with the natural world. By changing the philosophy of resource management, we can create better decision making and action power. One of the biggest barriers to this type of collaboration is the notion that Indigenous science should not have to bend to Western science or be forced to be proven through Western science rules, which directly contrasts the Western tenets of scientific research (Bala and Gheverghese, 2016). It will take work to weld these two knowledge bases together and care should be taken to maintain the integrity of each. Unfortunately, as remarked in this study, participants felt that Western science researchers seem to be avoidant of change and reluctant to accept new ways of thinking; due in large part to the training they have received in their formal education. This creates a superiority complex of Western science that has been experienced by many participants who have felt that there is an arrogance that comes from Western science researchers that push Western science as the only valid way to produce knowledge. This has often also been accompanied by a lack of respect for Indigenous people as knowledge holders. Indigenous knowledge holders don’t need Western science standards to know that their knowledge is valid and that their stories have meaning (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). This disregard for Indigenous knowledge creates a gap in the work needed to develop strong natural resource management. Especially when we look at Western sciences’ desire to write everything 38 down to create a rule or theory, while Indigenous knowledge is often told in the form of stories, and these stories have layers and different lessons that accompany it which are dependent on the storyteller, the audience, and what the storyteller wants to convey to the audience (Mussett et. al., 2023). This can lead to misunderstandings about Indigenous lessons and messages, as not all messages and teachings are consistent, or identical, across all tribal groups. But to Indigenous knowledge holders, that makes sense as different groups in different places have different stories and lessons to share. With different knowledge bases there is going to be a general lack of a cohesive vision at first because knowledge varies, and some areas of Indigenous knowledge and Western science are not going to cohesively combine. These different values and practices are often difficult to overcome, but not impossible. Some scientists are already realizing that Indigenous knowledge has very valuable data and understandings within their stories and within their cultures that can partner with Western science, but organizations and institutions need to do more to recognize the legitimacy of Indigenous knowledge (Bala and Gheverghese, 2007). Creating room to incorporate this knowledge is crucial to building the communication and effort around learning to respect it (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). 2.5.1 Policy Recommendations Researchers who want to work with tribes need to go into these communities, sit at their table and listen. In an article titled “Towards Reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to Natural scientists working in Canada” in Facets (Wong et. al., 2020), a multidisciplinary open access science journal, the authors lay out 10 main guidelines that researchers should adhere to when engaging and working with Indigenous communities especially in natural resources. These guidelines include many of the topics that have been brought up continuously in this paper 39 including building meaningful relationships, educating students with Indigenous focused courses, and to enable knowledge co-production. Asking a group that has either felt like they've been in control, or have been in control for a long time, to voluntarily relinquish some of their right to being right is a big, and often difficult, step. If we can overcome that in these conversations between tribal and non-tribal groups, then actual co-production is possible. Respecting this knowledge also includes protecting it from the potential harms of exploitation and misuse using comprehensive consent forms, and explicit contracts stating how the knowledge will be used and handled. Participants in this study agreed that once we respect the knowledge we can focus on respecting and honoring the plants and their purposes and respecting the environment as whole. In current day literature regarding natural resource management, there is minimal research done that includes past or present practices by Indigenous people (Gervasi et. al., 2017). Indigenous people are still here, still on this landscape, and still tending to these areas. But that creates another problem within itself, it is not up to the tribes to constantly educate people about their continued existence. Responses from this study show that the education system needs to better educate the youth in schools about the historical and ongoing presence of tribes and Indigenous people. More than that, it is important to understand that each tribe and tribal group has its own unique community and culture. Each tribe has its own needs, cultural considerations, and management practices. In higher education, more classes need to include different perspectives, such as including tribal knowledge in natural resource programs and encouraging more classes to engage with community leaders and knowledge holders. Educating and exposing students to a broader view of natural resources and tribal knowledge will expand their ability to appreciate those 40 different perspectives and help them think outside of Western science for a stronger response to the effects of climate change facing the world today (Dockry and Hoagland, 2017). This will lead to true collaboration for natural resource management and can build a framework for management that, while not universal, can be adapted to the region that you are in with a set of core holistic principles. However, this needs trust to be built and supported on both sides and requires time and compromise. Collaborators need to speak with these communities on what they need and how they can best be supported. The biggest perceived barrier to this is finding areas where they can agree, working towards those agreements, finding times when it makes sense for the tribes to lead, and supporting those efforts. These exercises can also work to build trust between agencies and tribes to create a knowledge sharing nexus that promotes a better understanding of how management decisions are impacting the Earth and how tribal and non-tribal entities can work together to mitigate those impacts. When bridging the gap between tribal and non-tribal entities, success has most often been achieved when tribes have a clear and well-defined agreement in collaboration (Harvey, Cochrane, and Van Epp, 2019). These agreements also often have dispute resolutions built in on how to handle situations of conflict or differing opinions. In addition to contractual collaboration, communication and understanding on both tribal and non-tribal groups sides are crucial to creating a positive knowledge co-production partnership that allows both groups to obtain benefits. Respectful relationships are needed to make those personal connections with non-tribal agencies successful. Open-mindedness and a willingness to have those discussions is important to lead to the conversations needed. 41 CHAPTER 3 PERSPECTIVE: COMMUNITY CAPACITY AS CRITICAL PRECURSOR TO KNOWLEDGE CO-PRODUCTION 3.1 Abstract Knowledge co-production (KCP) can be an involved process that requires a long-time investment among the contributors. Within the scientific community, especially among those seeking to understand and mitigate the impacts of climate change, there is an increased interest in developing research using knowledge co-production as it provides a more comprehensive approach to problem solving (Bremer et. al., 2019). There is an assumption that partners in KCP will prefer the co-production process, instead of a consultative approach or an approach that doesn’t include the partner at all. This study explores potential research fatigue and wariness during a knowledge co-production process that addresses community capacity issues and explores how relationships are built between researchers and communities. This case study focuses on a broad arctic community in the Yukon, describing what happens when a team from ‘away’ tries to engage in knowledge co-production in a very early stage, and how lessons might guide knowledge co-production efforts in the future. 3.2 Introduction To avoid a hegemonic response to climate change, Western scientists could strengthen collaborative efforts with Indigenous communities and knowledge holders to create and develop stronger management and strategies that incorporate Indigenous knowledge, especially when research focuses on lands owned, bordered by, or inhabited by these communities (Carmona et. al., 2023). Indigenous communities have continued to show a strong connection to place and history with the environment, even when access and availability have been lost, making them valuable partners in scientific inquiry (Wehi et. al., 2023). Indigenous knowledge is rich in 42 ecological specifics that makes it highly valuable in its own right and beneficial to knowledge co-production (Ulicsni et. al., 2019). Indigenous knowledge is also intertwined and linked within Indigenous society, culture, and responsibility to all beings of creation (Latulippe and Klenk, 2019). As such, Knowledge co-production (KCP) has the potential to create meaningful and powerful research collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous research partners (Molnár et. al., 2024). These collaborations are important to foster as Western science often lacks the local relational connection that collaborating with Indigenous knowledge can provide (Weaver, 2022). However, there are no set rules and few guidelines on how to engage and collaborate with Indigenous communities as all Indigenous communities are not the same, nor do they have the same issues, concerns, or capacity (Harvey, Cochrane, and Van Epp, 2018). In addition to that, not all collaboration can be characterized as knowledge co-production and often leaves the Indigenous collaborators in a consultative role with little or highly controlled input (Zurba et. al., 2021). As such, KCP needs be done with the intention that the research is ethical, equitable, and mutually beneficial for both parties involved (Degai et. al., 2022). However, there are several barriers that prevent the realization of these criteria (ethical, equitable, and mutually beneficial) which include, but are not limited to, positionality, epistemological barriers, history of extortion, and capacity. 3.2.1 Positionality Growing scholarship on the topic of decolonizing natural resource management methodology and increasing KCP partnerships have highlighted the concern of positionality, or the power and privileged position of Western science trained researchers have over those they ‘research’, as a key barrier to KCP as researchers who seek to conduct KCP often do so from a place of power or privilege in relation to those they wish to research (Maclean et. al., 2022). It is 43 important to remember and affirm that Indigenous communities are sovereign entities with laws, customs, and societal norms that must be respected (Weir et. al., 2023). Currently, an increasing number of environmental organizations sponsored by the government are being mandated to consult with tribal agencies, however they require the Indigenous community to develop communication about concerns they have with the environmental organizations projects and educate them about their communities (Dockry, Gutterman, and Davenport, 2018). This consult is also often viewed as a “checkbox” to appease governing officials that due process was carried out (Brock, Reed, and Stewart, 2023). This contributes to the power imbalance created by Western science epistemology by not actually engaging with the community in a meaningful way or on their terms. 3.2.2 Epistemological barriers Epistemological differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge systems often create a reluctance to engage with Indigenous knowledge as those not trained in it struggle to find connections to participate in knowledge co-production (Ulicsni et. al., 2018). Western scientific knowledge is often in opposition to incorporating knowledge that is not created and validated through the Western paradigm of what it defines as scientific research (Mauel- Navarrete, Buzinde, and Swanson, 2021). As outlined by Weir et. al. (2023) in an article focused on building KCP relationships, the authors note that many Western researchers still operate under the assumption that Indigenous knowledge is not needed to promote or advance Western science. This leaves different perspectives, biases, and values marginalized in how certain knowledge should be or can be used in research (Ulicsni et. al., 2018). These different perspectives and needs also lend themselves to issues that arise when it comes to defining success. Due to the relatively new and growing interest in KCP, ‘successful KCP’ is still 44 undefined and can lead to problems in overall development and implementation of KCP (Harvey, Cochrane, and Van Epp, 2018). The different perceptions, biases, and attitudes that researchers have towards KCP contributes to how they act and react in the building of KCP and can affect how the researchers view who has what power and who controls the knowledge being created (Mauel-Navarrete, Buzinde, and Swanson, 2021; Kalafatis et. al., 2019). Collaborative research then tends to favor and be advantageous to the Western science based, non-Indigenous, partners who benefit from publication and monetary gain (Weaver, 2022). Indigenous knowledge is often only cited in specific circumstances where it aides or supports Western science validity (Carmona et. al., 2023). “Current practices [of Western modern science dominance] reinforce pre-existing power relations” which then results in Indigenous knowledge continuing to be marginalized and dismissed if it does not adhere to Western research rhetoric and rules (Weaver, 2022; Brock, Reed, and Stewart, 2023). Creating the space for Indigenous knowledge to be included and honored in research requires researchers to value other ways of knowing as a valid methodology on its own and not require it to be validated through Western standards (Latulippe and Klenk, 2019). 3.2.3 History of exploitation and extraction Indigenous peoples are still being colonized using contested land rights and the breach of treaties by governing agencies (Brock, Reed, and Stewart, 2022). A history of systemic and racist policies has had negative effects on these communities over multiple generations. Dominant white culture practices that deny Tribe’s sovereign and judicial rights include the history of residential schooling, the lack of sufficient infrastructure for education and healthcare, and the continuous fight to maintain their sovereign and judicial rights (Brock, Reed, and Stewart, 2023). 45 Indigenous communities are often still viewed as subjects of research, rather than knowledge holding partners of research, which further leaves them marginalized (Kalafatis et. al., 2019). Stronger connection and a deeper understanding of the individual Indigenous communities that researchers desire collaboration with is an inherent need in order to build meaningful participatory relationships. Researchers collaborating with a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia noted that their participatory research initiatives were only made possible because of a pre-existing history of trust and power sharing relationship with those they were collaborating with (Conte et. al., 2024). However, there is usually no pre-existing relationship to grow on when planning KCP partnerships and often these Indigenous communities have a history of researchers entering their communities with extractive and exploitative intentions under the pretext of helping the community (Kolesar et. al., 2024). Hill et. al. (2020) argues that without fully acknowledging the history of colonization in these communities you cannot dismantle or avoid the structural power disparities that are present when non-Indigenous researchers come into their communities to attempt KCP. Without acknowledging this history, Western researchers are at risk of doing further damage to these communities and increasing their vulnerability (Hill et. al., 2020). Herman-Mercer et. al. (2023) warns other researchers to avoid focusing on the end product of KCP instead of the KCP process itself in order to maintain a positive and collaborative mindset when working with these communities. 3.2.4 Capacity One of the largest barriers many Indigenous communities face when attempting to build KCP partnerships is that of capacity. Some of the most prominent constraints related to capacity 46 include adherence to different timelines, lack of available resources, and the burden of having to regularly educate outside researchers about their community and culture. Herman-Mercer et. al. (2023) also reflects this and suggests that the biggest concerns for capacity include funding, time, means, and ability. In KCP processes, it has been noted that typically one or both parties will have a lack of funding, staff, or time required to conduct meaningful and beneficial KCP (Kolesar et. al., 2024). Often, once a project design has been approved and/or granted there is little to no room for adjustment or redesign as the needs and position of the Indigenous partners change or become more complex (Kruijf et. al., 2022). However, the time required to build trusting relationships does not support these restrictions. In a study in the arctic, Herman-Mercer et. al. (2023) found that it took their team a year to build a working relationship with tribes in central to northern Alaska and the Yukon Territory in Canada they were collaborating with and found that this time frame is not supported or realistic for Western scientific systems that prioritize publications and research outputs. This does not allow for the development and planning for long term KCP relationships that are needed (Dockry, Gutterman, and Davenport, 2018). In a study done by Lemieux et. al. (2015), researchers assessed the common barriers in multi-jurisdictional natural resource management partnerships, and they agreed that time was a barrier to developing productive KCP. This type of collaboration and partnership requires a great amount of time to develop as well as the different time constraints and availability of time that participants have to offer at a given time during development (Briley, Brown, and Kalafatis, 2015). Strict regulations on funding also prevent Indigenous communities from accessing certain capacity thresholds for KCP, especially since most outside funding opportunities relegate them to a consultative entity rather than an equal and active partner in planning and operation (Brock, 47 Reed, and Stewart, 2023). This also creates an implicit bias and influence on what research is done and how, as well as a power imbalance of who gets to make those decisions (Zurba et. al., 2021). Capacity imbalances can be beneficial, but only when the partner with higher funding power assists the partner with less funding capacity in a way that makes them an equal and equitable partner in processes, without this assistance it perpetuates power imbalances that threaten tribal and Indigenous sovereignty (Fischer et. al, 2022). 3.2.5 Solutions Fischer et. al. (2022) found success in KCP by creating a Declaration of Principles and Expectations, as outlined by Naquin et. al. (2019), that explicitly details both parties’ principles and standards for working together and then revisited frequently to maintain “just, ethical, equitable, respectful, and socially responsible collaboration”. All parties involved should outline and agree to how that knowledge is produced, validated, and used (Herman-Mercer et. al., 2023). In one report that offers guidance on partnering with tribal nations, researchers call upon a third-party facilitator, here named boundary facilitators, which helps guide collaboration while alleviating the historic transgressions and lack of trust among the parties (Steen-Adams et. al., 2023). Boundary facilitators are a third-party mediator that oversees KCP partnerships and collaborations to help build strong and productive KCP conditions (Herman-Mercer et. al., 2023; Briley, Brown, and Kalafatis, 2015). These boundary facilitators focus on ensuring all terminology, outcomes, and objectives are understood and agreed upon by both parties and facilitate ongoing agreements and understanding throughout the KCP process (Briley, Brown, and Kalafatis, 2015). They are also beneficial in nudging both parties to maintain timetable commitments as well as communicating delays and other barriers that may affect time frame deliverables (Kolesar et. al., 2024). 48 Removing KCP barriers requires non-Indigenous researchers to practice empathy and humility by imagining themselves in the role of their Indigenous collaborators and identifying areas that require further measures to maintain and promote equity (Herman-Mercer et. al., 2023). Kalafatis et. al. (2019) agrees that the best way to enter Indigenous communities to do good work is to enter with “the right attitude, taking the right actions, and cultivating the right processes”. 3.3 Methods A multidisciplinary team traveled to the Lhù’ààn Mânʼ (Kluane Lake) region 2-3 times per year for 3 years as a group of outsiders - from U.S. and Canadian institutions of higher education (Michigan State University, Northern Arizona University and University of Waterloo). Lhù’ààn Mânʼ (Southern Tutchone for Kluane Lake), is the largest freshwater lake in the territory. Receiving water from the Kaskawulsh Glacier via Ä’äy Chù (Slims River), Lhù’ààn Mânʼ is situated on the traditional territories of the Kluane First Nation, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and the White River First Nation, and is home to two communities: Destruction Bay, and Lhù’ààn Mân Keyǐ (Burwash Landing). In May 2016, the Kaskawulsh Glacier abruptly diverted its flow from the Ä’äy Chù to the Kaskawulsh River, effectively cutting off Lhù’ààn Mânʼ from any inflow and leading to the lowest water levels since records began [in 1952] (McKnight, 2017). The context was a planning grant specifically designed to address knowledge co- production and to plan research needs with communities, starting with co-development of research questions. The team first connected with the Kluane Research Station, (KLRS; led by the Arctic Institute for North America) and IceField Discovery, both of which facilitate scientific research in the region. Scientific research around Lhù’ààn Mânʼ dates back to 1935 (Danby et al. 49 2014), with explorations of the Saint Elias mountains. KLRS was established in 1961, and researchers from around the globe have used the station as a base for conducting foundational research in the fields of glaciology, geomorphology, geology, biology, botany, zoology, hydrology, limnology, climatology, physiology, anthropology and archaeology (Danby et al. 2014). Call 1: We call on natural scientists to understand the socio-political landscape around their research sites Call 2: We call on natural scientists to recognize that generating knowledge about the land is a goal shared with Indigenous peoples and to seek meaningful relationships and possible collaboration for better outcomes for all involved Call 3: We call on natural scientists to enable knowledge sharing and knowledge co- production Call 4: We call on natural scientists studying animals to seek out advice from Elders for respectful ways of handling animals Call 5: We call upon natural scientists to provide meaningful opportunities for Indigenous community members, particularly youth, to experience and participate in science Call 6: To decolonize the landscape, we call on natural scientists to incorporate Indigenous place names as permitted Call 7: We call upon natural scientists and their students to take a course on Indigenous history and rights Call 8: We call on funding bodies to change approaches to funding Call 9: We call on editors of all scientific journals to recognize that publication of research on Indigenous Knowledge and cultural resources require review and permission from the respective Indigenous communities Call 10: Finally, we call on all natural scientists and postsecondary research institutions to develop a new vision for conducting natural science: fundamentally mainstreaming reconciliation in all aspects of the scientific endeavor, from formulation to completion Table 3.1. Wong et. al. (2020) best practices for community engaged research with First Nations in Canada. The station is proximal to the traditional territory of the Kluane First Nations, and the territory of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations is also nearby. Fairly immediately, the team was introduced to Wong et al. (2020) 10 Calls to Action by representatives of the Kluane First Nations, describing a framework for researchers interested in the region. This important 50 document highlighted best practices that are critical to community-engaged research with First Nations in Canada (Table 3.1). During each visit, the researchers kept careful notes and collected documents from First Nations communities, local government, non-governmental organizations, and other community members in the region. No meetings were audio-recorded given the preferences of community members. Researchers attended several research summits (one hosted by the Kluane Research Station and one hosted by the Kluane First Nations), two cultural events (e.g., muskrat camp), ad hoc meetings to get to know each other, and formal meetings to discuss research needs and expertise. The final dataset consisted of meeting notes from 20 meetings, 2 research summits, and two cultural events. The notes represented interactions with 152 individuals. All meeting notes and event materials were qualitatively coded using NVivo12 software using grounded theory in two stages: initial coding and focused thematic coding. Initial coding provided brief outlines of thematic elements and focused coding refined those thematic elements into main themes of the data. The research team’s positionality statement is that we recognize the critical importance of the Wong et al. (2020) approach to research, and also respect that we are a group of outside researchers trying to learn and understand a community that we do not live in. We hope, though, that studies and published works like this will continue advocating for openness and progress - even if that means breaking outside the normal funding cycles and western approaches (and rewards) for research that are not compatible with community norms and expectations. Prior to all interactions, we discussed the possibility of summarizing interactions into a research paper and received Institutional Review Board approval to use content from meetings and interactions (anonymized) for this study. 51 3.4 Results From the dataset acquired five main themes emerged (Table 3.2) that highlighted the overall lessons learned from the interactions of this study, summarized for western science researchers who wish to engage in knowledge co-production. Main themes Lessons Learned Established relationships Understanding capacity Identified budget Flexibility Piggyback on existing projects in the region. Community already bought in, relationships and trust may exist, perceived to be not a new ask. Requires fewer resources. Come with easy asks (e.g., pre-written menu of research questions, structured feedback engagements - do the pre-work to make it less burdensome). Budget correctly for community members to work on the project. Be prepared to pivot to other topics, questions, etc. Acceptance of unsuccessful collaboration Be prepared to walk away. Table 3.2. Five main themes that emerged from data identifying lessons learned. 3.4.1 Established relationships Before engaging with First Nations, or Indigenous community, it is vital to have prior engagement and approval from those persons to enter their community and conduct research. This includes approval from tribal leaders, appropriate IRB approval, and ensuring that those you will be working with are well informed and agree to partake in your study. Given the history of extract research processes, without achieving this approval you are continuing the harmful practice of colonization. Establishing prior relationships can be done through connections with tribal scientists, tribal leaders, or engaging with previously associated or attached research projects. This 52 eliminates excess resources needed for new trust building and work for the Indigenous communities. 3.4.2 Understanding capacity Effectively working with Indigenous and First Nations communities comes with the added step of needing to understand the level of capacity these communities have when engaging in outside research projects. Preparation needs to be done with an established work plan and/or menu that is agreed upon between the outside researchers and the community involved prior to the start of the project, while understanding that this plan may be altered or changed depending on community needs and priorities. 3.4.3 Identified budget Proper preparation for entering an Indigenous community includes prior agreement and establishment of a budget for all aspects of the project, including planning, implementation, and analysis. Budget correctly for community members to work on the project. 3.4.4 Flexibility As an outside researcher, flexibility is vital when entering a community and conducting research. Be prepared to pivot to other topics, questions, etc. if/when priorities and capacities shift. Imbedding prepared flexibility, meaning going into the project with an understanding that these communities do not operate under the typically strict research timelines that most Western science researchers are used to, allows for easier transitions and alternatives in project design. However, this is more than having the written plan flexible, but it also means opening up your idea of what research looks like when collaborating with Indigenous communities and being mentally flexible for things to shift. 53 3.4.5 Acceptance of unsuccessful collaboration The final lesson that this study discovered is the understanding that you need to be prepared to walk away. Like typical Western science research projects, collaborating with Indigenous communities means that sometimes projects and priorities in these communities can shift in a way that is unrecoverable for the timeline or budget that the outside researchers have prepared for. In this event, it is important to recognize when to walk away from a project or archive it for later. However, this should still be done with respect and communication with the community. 3.5 Discussion This project shows that openness and progress are not all that are necessary for conducting research with Indigenous communities as researchers from outside the community. We have shown that even with a planning grant mechanism to build community relationships, it is important to recognize and respect that these communities operate with different priorities, values, and timelines that do not conform to Western science research rules and that understanding this and working with communities requires more in-depth partnership and development. It is important to note that capacity barriers may be the constraint from the Western science side of the relationship, rather than an issue laid at the feet of indigenous and tribal communities. Understanding the epistemological, capacity, and value differences between research groups and the communities they wish to partner with, in this case the First Nations peoples, this study reinforces the literature base that working with these communities requires time, effort, and overall strong and equitable communication and decision making power between collaborators. 54 We hope that this research serves as a case study of the work and effort that is needed to effectively and successfully collaborate with Indigenous communities as a supplemental lesson with Wong et. al. (2010). 55 CHAPTER 4 ARE FORESTRY BS CURRICULA IN US UNIVERSITIES COMPATIBLE WITH TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE OF FORESTS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT? 4.1 Abstract Roughly 1/3rd of the world's intact forest landscapes are on lands managed by Indigenous peoples (Fa et. al., 2020). An estimated 4,000 miles of Indigenous forestland shares a border with US Forest Service lands alone, not including other agencies and organizations that border Indigenous lands. Without proper training in communicating with, understanding of, and general exposure to, tribal entities, future foresters are not only at a disadvantage in the sector, but are inadequately prepared to work meaningfully with tribal partners. Using a survey and qualitative analysis of syllabi from Society of American Foresters accredited Forestry BS programs at universities, we assessed the prevalence and context of Indigenous knowledge and topics in forestry curricula. From this study we found that while there is an interest in incorporating more Indigenous knowledge in some courses, there is still an inherent lack of incorporation, and in addition to this we found that texts required for a majority of these courses have harmful and inaccurate depictions of Indigenous persons. We use this analysis to advocate for more Indigenous knowledge in forestry curricula. 4.2 Introduction During colonization of North America, one of the ways that settlers tried to "save Indians" was to force their children into residential schools where they received a Christian education and were barred from all traditional practices and cultural knowledge (Dupuis & Abrams, 2017). This colonization has perpetuated a profound loss of both heritage and knowledge among tribal citizens and is also evident in educational curriculum that is mostly or 56 entirely based on the belief and value systems of European cultures. In current academic institutions, colonialism is still encapsulated in the educational epistemology across subjects, and is only contested through specific classes that focus on Native studies, cultural studies, women’s studies, and antiracist education (Battiste et al., 2002). University education in the United States largely reflects the intellectual and cultural traditions of settler white colonials and perpetuates Western science as supreme (DeBeer & Whitlock, 2009). This is also apparent in Forestry education where forest management and the study of forestry is centered on Western science and ignores the long history of Indigenous management that occurred prior to colonization, current tribal forest management, and the Indigenous knowledge upon which it is based. Indigenous knowledge focuses on a holistic view of the environment where every component has an important role to play and should be respected and viewed as part of one system; in contrast Western science tends to focus more on the individual pieces of the environment or system (Baynes, 2016). This separation prevents meaningful additions to mainstream curricula, and instead, universities have created add-on classes, or programs, which focus on Indigenous knowledge as a subset of elective courses. While these classes are moving curricula in the right direction, creating a subdivision from core Forestry curricula prevents Indigenous students from connecting their cultural teaching to their academic learning, develop their academic and workforce potential, and prevents non-Indigenous students in Forestry, who do not take these select classes, from being exposed to this knowledge (Kaya & Seleti, 2013). Roughly 1/3rd of the world's intact forest landscapes are on lands managed by Indigenous peoples (Fa et. al., 2020). Additionally, in the United States alone, 34% of the landmass is held by Native American tribes (BIA.gov, 2020). Given this, it is critical that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous forestry practitioners learn about Indigenous management, culture, and 57 knowledge during their training. Moreover, an estimated 4,000 miles of Indigenous forestland shares a border with US Forest Service lands alone, not including other agencies and organizations that border Indigenous lands. In addition to this, federal land managers now have a legal requirement to consult with tribes on forest management in these areas where cross- boundary stewardship is essential (Dockry & Hoag, 2017). This requirement is often difficult, because new foresters lack the background knowledge or respect for Indigenous ways of knowing (Verma et al., 2016). Native and Indigenous communities advocate for more co- management training and a focus on spiritual, cultural, and subsistence values of forest land; currently, forestry curriculum does not prepare students for this sector of the profession (De’arman and York, 2021). Without proper training in communicating with, understanding of, and general exposure to, tribal entities, future foresters are not only at a disadvantage in the sector, but are inadequately prepared to work meaningfully with tribal partners. In addition to the cultural disconnect, Indigenous students specifically are faced with numerous barriers that impede their educational pursuits. For example, Indigenous students often feel a sense of duty and familial obligations to their family beyond academic success that can hinder their ability to prosper in a normal academic setting, as they may need to provide assistance on farms and with elderly family members (Gervais et. al., 2017). Other factors attributed to Indigenous student challenges include imposter syndrome, because students lack faculty and staff that resemble them and their cultural values, leading to a disconnect with the subject matter and the institution itself (Guillory, 2009). Indigenous students also feel a lack of appropriate academic mentoring that considers their differing cultures, needs, and interests (Guillory, 2009). Universities and programs also tend to use Indigenous students as ‘token’ representatives for all things Indigenous, expecting them to educate their peers and 58 overburdening students with service and volunteer responsibilities, as compared to their non- Indigenous peers (Gervais et. al., 2017). The lack of representation in Forestry also puts an increased demand on Indigenous academics who go into faculty positions (Bal and Sharik, 2019). This continued ‘othering’ in Western Science creates a problematic environment for Indigenous students who feel that these universities and institutions are hostile towards their cultures and identities (Schmidtke, 2016).Creating stronger and better prepared foresters and encouraging and retaining Indigenous students in the field of forestry can be supported by incorporating Indigenous knowledge in forestry curricula. Each indigenous group has their own knowledge system, and though they are diverse and locally rooted, they share similar worldviews where ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology are interconnected through various relationships (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). Indigenous knowledge combines the different technologies and practices that have been used by Indigenous communities to adapt and survive to any change in the environment. This is due to the deeply rooted connection that these communities have with the environment (Handayani et al., 2018). Indigenous peoples are not outsiders looking in, they are in and one with the environment, repeating the holistic nature of their knowledge base. This integration of self with the environment allows Indigenous peoples to continue to play a vital role in protecting and preserving the ecological processes, which allows Indigenous groups to ensure their own survival. Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is often place-based and is built through the continued practices, beliefs, and processes between living beings with one another and their environment that is handed down through generations through cultural practice (Emery et al., 2014). It is created through the direct interaction with an environment and by studying the changes and 59 consistencies of the local environment over time. IK operates with a holistic view, taking in all the parts of a system and identifying the similarities between the different elements (Bussey et. al., 2016). However, these systems, just like the communities that study them, are diverse and vary in their ecological makeup. For example, a forest in the Midwest will differ from a forest in the Southwest and so too will the expertise and experience that the local Indigenous communities have (Jacob et. al., 2018). This place-based focus has the potential to foster better connections between the university, all students, and the surrounding Indigenous communities and encourage real-world significance for students and faculty, by focusing research and education outcomes on diverse real-world issues, needs, and experiences (Calderon, 2014; Boisselle, 2016). However, IK and associated practices have been deemed a ‘cultural ritual or belief system,’ and therefore, not Western Modern Science compliant (Handayani et al., 2018). Western Modern Science (WMS) is the world's current leading belief system for how knowledge should be created, interpreted, and presented. It is an organizational system that constructs knowledge based on natural occurrences and phenomena that is followed by a process to understand and explain them (Handayani et al., 2018). This form of science is a cultural process, and a sub-cultural belief, of the dominant Western culture (Baynes, 2016). In this view, nature is viewed objectively, where humans are separate from natural processes. As such, Western universities were created using this foundation and in turn have censored and excluded all other ways of knowing (Andreotti et al., 2015). In Western education systems, colonial practices privilege this way of knowing over all other forms of knowledge and knowledge creation (McKinley, 2020). This leads to Indigenous knowledge and practices relegated to small sections of larger courses, if at all, or being separated into elective courses. 60 Power over knowledge is embedded into the system itself, which is a result and further advancement of colonization (McMurchy-Plinkington et al., 2008). The focus of WMS is to produce knowledge through making observations and developing theories to explain that phenomenon, but in a way that often looks at individual phenomena within a system instead of the system as a whole (Dupuis & Abrams, 2017). WMS focuses on individual pieces of larger systems to create an understanding of the larger system through its parts, but this often fails to provide the whole picture. This view creates a disconnect between natural processes and prevents researchers from fully understanding the interconnected nature of the environment (Kaya & Seleti, 2013). Most notably, WMS has historically imposed the belief that to be considered ‘scholarly,’ or considered a serious academic study, that the study must be free from external interference, especially community, or human, engagement. However, this negates itself for natural resource management, as most natural resources have in some way been influenced by human interaction, whether through extractive purposes, climate change, suppression, societal development, or previous Indigenous management. This view has been changing over the years, but more work needs to be done. By omitting these key factors of a system, the view, and resulting outcome, may represent a pristine untouched environment, but not the reality of anthropogenic systems. However, WMS continues to do this by reproducing oppressive and subjective knowledge that continues to uplift WMS rules but negates and marginalizes all other types of knowledge, including IK (Akena, 2012). For example, the Yosemite Valley was originally deemed by European colonizers to be an Eden-like pristine landscape, when in actuality the Yosemite Valley had been tended to for millennia by the local Indigenous populations who managed the area for specific species, habitats, and purposes (Anderson, 2021). The relationship built with the environment in this manner allowed the Indigenous groups in the 61 area to discover ways to sustainably harvest these natural resources and encourage a continuous interaction, however this knowledge was suppressed and ignored for many years by WMS in favor of thinking that Indigenous persons could not create such a landscape (Anderson, 2021). Given the current recognition within the United States of climate change and the push for forests as a natural climate solution to safeguard human life on the planet, Indigenous peoples and their perspectives forest management policies should be incorporated in forestry training programs as they offer place based knowledge that they have developed over millennia and continue to grow (Mehta et. al., 2021). To produce successful foresters, it is important to look at the extent to which forestry BS curricula in US universities incorporates traditional Indigenous knowledge of forests and forest management. Forestry as a field of Natural Resources in the United States has seen declining numbers of minority enrollment, from already low numbers, which Indigenous students catalogued as (Bal and Sharik, 2019). This study seeks to investigate the current prevalence and the potential for further advancement of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and Indigenous perspectives into Forestry curricula in mainstream institutions of higher education. Currently there is a lack of research on the existence and prevalence of Indigenous knowledge in Forestry curricula in universities in the United States. Advancements have been made on collaborations between Indigenous peoples and Western Science, finding that there is a need for this integration, however, there is very little research into actual changes being done in university curricula (Verma et. al., 2016). Therefore, this research aims to understand the prevalence of Indigenous knowledge in Forestry curricula and in what capacity. By understanding the prevalence and context of the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge in curriculum we can better understand how to further the advancement of this knowledge and 62 where the gaps in knowledge may be. With this, we can potentially push for universities and institutions of higher education to rework their curricula to incorporate Indigenous knowledge. 4.3 Methods There are 75 Society of American Foresters accredited undergraduate forestry programs in the United States. Of these programs, we sampled 5. Data collection occurred in two phases. Phase one consisted of emailing and reaching out to all faculty in teaching courses, requesting access to their syllabi. From this, 59 syllabi were obtained from three universities with two failing to respond. Phase two consisted of sending out an email survey with three questions aimed at understanding the prevalence of Indigenous knowledge and topics in the curriculum of individual classes, asking four questions (Appendix b) to supplement syllabi collection and give faculty the opportunity to expand on anything their syllabi does not expressly address. Each respondent was presented with an informed consent precursor that required acknowledgement prior to survey participation which included IRB approval details. We received 21 survey responses with 20 respondents supplying their current syllabi, which were copies from the original 59 collected in phase one. Analysis included a qualitative content analysis of all syllabi collected using NVIVO12 software. Coding consisted of searching syllabi for (1) mentions of Indigenous peoples and/or tribes, (2) required textbook(s), and (3) supplemental reading. Each required textbook was searched for using an internet search engine (Google) for a pdf version. If the text was attainable, text was searched for keywords: Indigenous, native, Indian, tribe, and tribal. Survey responses (all qualitative) were also coded using NVIVO12 software and focused on assigning responses to categories. These were then analyzed for prevalence of Indigenous 63 knowledge in Forestry courses and the potential to incorporate Indigenous knowledge in the future. 4.4 Results 4.4.1 Syllabi Of the 59 syllabi collected, covering courses listed under “Forestry”, “Forest and Rangeland Stewardship”, and “Forest Ecology and Management”, 32 listed at least one required textbook with a total of 36 individually required texts. Multiple classes utilized the same textbook across universities and were only counted once. Of the 36 required textbooks, 21 were available for review online. Searching for keywords, just over half of the texts found online mention Indigenous persons in some way, with 2 mentioning them in a positive way, as still alive or discussing their history of conducting the original prescribed burns to manage forests. Seven of the texts (over half) that mention Indigenous peoples, mention them in a negative way, as “primitive” or extinct. “Not the least of the extinctions was indigenous man, who was completely gone from Florida between 1700 and 1800 (Tebeau 1971) and largely removed from the southeastern United States by 1839 (Perdue and Green 1995)” (Jose, Jokela, and Miller, 2006). The three remaining texts that mention Indigenous persons do so in a way that is neither positive nor negative but focuses on case studies of environmental justice or the Indigenous cultural practices associated with certain tree species and practices. Seventy-five percent (44) of the collected syllabi mentioned having supplemental readings in their course, however, less than 1%, only five of those 75% provided a list of articles and chapters for the course. The other 99% of syllabi referenced their universities’ online web- 64 based learning management system for students (such as CANVAS and Desire2Learn). From the five syllabi that listed their supplemental reading material, a total of 34 readings were listed, these included textbooks, books, journal articles, and non-academic articles. Of these 34 (Appendix c), 62% (21) of them were obtained and reviewed for the same keywords as the required texts: Indigenous, native, Indian, tribe, and tribal. From these, less than half, 38% (8), mentioned Indigenous persons, and of those 8, three mentioned Indigenous persons positively, 1 mentioned negatively, and the remaining 4 made mention to Indigenous persons but in a neutral manner. 4.4.2 Surveys In total, 19 viable surveys were collected where participants answered at least one of the 4 questions provided. From these 19 surveys, 13 mentioned including Indigenous topics in some way in their course. However, most participants (68%) do not incorporate Indigenous guest speakers or visits to tribal nations or territories. However, one respondent mentioned that, while they are new to this topic, they would like to incorporate it in the future. In asking about what other ways students are familiarized with Indigenous knowledge and history, roughly half answered that they incorporate some form of Indigenous knowledge, such as case stories, examples, traditional uses of plants, and additional readings, however, the majority mentioned that these are minor course components, and some are only included if students or professors bring them up in discussion. 65 Question: Do you include Indigenous topics in your course? None Relationship Non-traditional uses International Indigenous… Indigenous Management Included throughout/not specific History of NA/Indigenous peoples Guest speakers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 4.1. Survey responses on if faculty include Indigenous topics and how. Professors provided various ways that they include Indigenous topics in their course, with 16% saying they do not include any Indigenous topics. Question: In what other ways (if any) are students familiarized with indigenous knowledge and history during your class or the broader forestry curricula? None Future/potential inclusion Readings and videos Indigenous uses Examples Class topics Case stories In the past 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 4.2. Survey responses on what other ways Indigenous topics might be incorporated in class curricula – majority (>80%) mentioned other ways they incorporate Indigenous knowledge in forestry curricula. 66 4.5 Discussion At this current point in time, our sample indicates that there is little incorporation of traditional Indigenous knowledge of forests and forest management in forestry BA/BS curricula in US universities, but there is interest in doing more in the future, and awareness that it is important. From the surveys and syllabi collected, it is evident that Indigenous topics, while becoming more prevalent are still missing from this sample of Forestry curriculum. More universities are acknowledging Indigenous topics and people; for example, many universities incorporate Land Acknowledgements in their syllabi and on university websites, but do not incorporate these perspectives beyond a preliminary introduction. Given that Indigenous groups hold 1/3rd of the world's intact forest landscapes, including 1/3rd of the United States alone, it is evident that we need to include Indigenous perspectives and prepare our future foresters to engage and work with Indigenous partners (Fa et. al., 2020). However, this sample indicates that there is a wide gap to close. Moreover, for those respondents who do incorporate some Indigenous perspectives or case studies, there is still a need to advance the inclusion of Indigenous guest speakers and/or field trips to tribal lands, to give students more complete exposure to different ways of knowing and managing forest lands. Considering the growing importance of climate change and the need to evolve current natural resource management, a lack of incorporating Indigenous knowledge means that students entering the professional field will be missing important interdisciplinary knowledge and skills (De’arman and York, 2021). Furthermore, faculty are still using textbooks with harmful and stigmatizing portrayals of Indigenous topics, without including more contemporary readings and understanding of Indigenous peoples today. This means that, unless a student takes other courses that focus on 67 Indigenous peoples or discusses them in a more contemporary way, students complete accredited forestry programs with an antiquated and inaccurate viewpoint of Indigenous peoples. In addition, Indigenous students are shown that their culture, their people, and their knowledge is no longer relevant or alive. This rhetoric can be very harmful for Indigenous students going through these programs and can further feelings of not belonging in higher education and academia, which can further depress their retention and enrollment rates in higher education institutions. This is also a disadvantage to the non-Indigenous students who, if they choose a career in forestry, have the potential to one day engage with and work with Indigenous groups, including Indigenous forest managers. Engaging with the Indigenous knowledge narrative during this formative education can produce future professionals who have a respect for this knowledge base and give them the ability to properly engage in interdisciplinary collaborations (Baynes, 2016). While current syllabi and course materials lack the prevalence of Indigenous topics, there is an interest to do more incorporation and begin to include these topics more dynamically throughout. One such way that was mentioned is to locate your local tribal group and learn more about their forestry practices through guest speakers and field trips. In addition to this, universities can begin to promote Indigenous knowledge in general forestry curriculum, discussing these topics in a comparable way you would other landowners (private, state, federal, etc.) and their management practices. On a systemic level, Indigenous knowledge can be incorporated through required Indigenous management courses, or through a change to overall curriculum that requires applicable courses, such as “Introduction to Forestry” and “Forest Management” classes to incorporate these topics. 68 Future research recommendations include looking into more SAF accredited programs for a more encompassing understanding of universities that are incorporating Indigenous knowledge and how; as well as looking into the efficacy and impact of the few programs that have begun incorporating Indigenous knowledge. 69 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Natural resource management can benefit from increased collaboration and partnership with Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge, and these partnerships will be enhanced if future resource managers are properly trained, including examples and knowledge of Indigenous ways of knowing. Chapter 2 outlines the growing concerns that natural resource managers in the Great Lakes Region have over natural resource management and how Indigenous natural resource management and non-Indigenous natural resource management coincide and differ, and how they can be combined to promote knowledge co-production. This chapter explores the perceptions that natural resource managers have and analyzes their lived experiences with natural resource management in the area. This is important when we think about how to manage and mitigate the bigger problems facing our environment, such as climate change, and how combining these knowledge bases has the potential to lead to stronger management outcomes as well as partnership. However, this is not without its limitations, and it is necessary to engage with Indigenous communities as equal partners in management and planning. Chapter 3 expands on this concept by exploring how, even when all considerations are made on the different constraints of partners working together, obstacles can still arise. Chapter 3 serves as a reminder that Indigenous communities have different timelines and priorities that need to be considered and offer examples of how to proceed when faced with obstacles, with understanding and a willingness to rework priorities and management. Finally, Chapter 4 stresses the need for more Indigenous knowledge in forestry curricula and options for incorporation. A more extensive exploration of the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge across a wider range of universities can 70 provide further analysis of the extent to which Indigenous knowledge is used and can be used to build new curricula suggestions. After conducting these studies, and engaging with these communities and this knowledge, I add my own definition of Indigenous Knowledge as the lived and learned experiences and knowledge that is passed down through generations and continuously developed over time. Without incorporation of this knowledge, we leave not only our future foresters at a disadvantage, but we also place the burden of educating those foresters on how to interact and collaborate, on the Indigenous communities themselves. Harmful stereotypes, found in the required textbooks and supplemental reading of analyzed courses as well as the idea that Western Science is superior, creates a continued form of colonization and othering that places Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge at a disadvantage. Considering that there is already a desire to incorporate Indigenous knowledge in curricula and natural resource management, this study can be used to promote changes in forestry as a field of natural resource. In conclusion, these results show the importance of incorporating and including more Indigenous knowledge in not only natural resource management, but in the training and education of future natural resource professionals. Utilizing Indigenous knowledge in the field of forestry should be viewed as a step toward stronger natural resource management. 71 WORKS CITED Akena, F. A. (2012). Critical Analysis of the Production of Western Knowledge and Its Implications for Indigenous Knowledge and Decolonization. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712440448 An, L. (2012). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling, 229, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.07.010 Andersen, C. (2019). The Paradigm of Indigenous Methodologies. (2016), 58–81. Anderson, M. K. (2021). Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press. Andreotti, V. D. O., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40. Andronov, S., Lobanov, A., Popov, A., Luo, Y., Shaduyko, O., Fesyun, A., … Kobel’kova, I. (2021). Changing diets and traditional lifestyle of Siberian Arctic Indigenous Peoples and effects on health and well-being. Ambio, 50(11), 2060–2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-020-01387-9 Archibald, J. (2007). Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit. Arvin, M., Tuck, E., & Morrill, A. (2013). Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy. In Feminist Formations (Vol. 25). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43860665?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents Bal, T. L., & Sharik, T. L. (2019). Web Content Analysis of University Forestry and Related Natural Resources Landing Webpages in the United States in Relation to Student and Faculty Diversity. Journal of Forestry, 117(4), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvz024 Bala, A., & Gheverghese Joseph, G. (2016). Indigenous knowledge and western science: the possibility of dialogue: Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/0306396807080067, 49(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396807080067 Bala, T. L., & Sharik, T. L. (2019). Web Content Analysis of University Forestry and Related Natural Resources Landing Webpages in the United States in Relation to Student and Faculty Diversity. Journal of Forestry, 117(4), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvz024 Bang, M., Marin, A., & Medin, D. (2018). If Indigenous Peoples Stand with the Sciences, Will Scientists Stand with Us? The American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 147(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00498 72 Battiste, M., Bell, L., & Findlay, L. M. (2002). Decolonizing Education in Canadian Universities: An Interdisciplinary, International, Indigenous Research Project. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 20(2), 413–429. Baynes, R. (2016). Teachers’ Attitudes to Including Indigenous Knowledges in the Australian Science Curriculum. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2015.29 BIA.gov. (2020). Frequently Asked Questions | Indian Affairs. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W. G., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426 Boisselle, L. N. (2016). Decolonizing Science and Science Education in a Postcolonial Space (Trinidad, a Developing Caribbean Nation, Illustrates). SAGE Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016635257 Brayboy, B. M. J., Gouch, H. R., Leonard, B., Roehl II, R. F., & Solyom, J. A. (2012). Reclaiming Scholarship: Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies. In Qualitative Research (pp. 423–450). Brayboy, B. M., & Deyhle, D. (2000). Insider-Outsider: Researchers in American Indian Communities. Theory Into Practice2, 39(3), 163–169. Bremer, S., Wardekker, A., Dessai, S., Sobolowski, S., Slaattelid, R., & van der Sluijs, J. (2019). Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. In Climate Services (Vol. 13, pp. 42–50). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.01.003 Briley, L., Brown, D., & Kalafatis, S. E. (2015). Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making. Climate Risk Management, 9, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRM.2015.04.004 Brock, T., Reed, M. G., & Stewart, K. J. (2023). A practical framework to guide collaborative environmental decision making among Indigenous Peoples, corporate, and public sectors. Extractive Industries and Society, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2023.101246 Bullard, S. H., Williams, P. S., Coble, T., Coble, D. W., Darville, R., & Rogers, L. (2014). Producing “Society-Ready” Foresters: A Research-Based Process to Revise the Bachelor of Science in Forestry Curriculum at. Journal of Forestry, 112(4), 354–360. Bussey, J., Davenport, M. A., Emery, M. R., & Carroll, C. (2016). “A Lot of It Comes from the Heart”: The Nature and Integration of Ecological Knowledge in Tribal and Nontribal Forest Management. Journal of Forestry, 114(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14- 130 73 Calderon, D. (2014). Speaking back to Manifest Destinies: a land education-based approach to critical curriculum inquiry. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.865114 Callison, C. (2020). The Twelve-Year Warning. ISIS, 111(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1086/707823 Carmona, R., Reed, G., Thorsell, S., Dorough, D. S., MacDonald, J. P., Rai, T. B., & Sanago, G. A. (2023). Analyzing engagement with Indigenous Peoples in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report. Npj Climate Action, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/S44168-023-00048-3 Carr, T., Kenefic, L. S., & Ranco, D. J. (2017). Wabanaki Youth in Science (WaYS): A Tribal Mentoring and Educational Program Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Science. Journal of Forestry, 115(5), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16- 066 Chief, K., Meadow, A., & Whyte, K. P. (2016). Engaging Southwestern Tribes in Sustainable Water Resources Topics and Management. Water, 8(350), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080350 Conte, K. P., Laycock, A., Bailie, J., Walke, E., Onnis, L. Ann, Feeney, L., Langham, E., Cunningham, F., Matthews, V., & Bailie, R. (2024). Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesizing research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S12961-023-01087-2 Costanza, K. K. L., Livingston, W. H., Kashian, D. M., Slesak, R. A., Tardif, J. C., Dech, J. P., Diamond, A. K., Daigle, J. J., Ranco, D. J., Neptune, J. S., Benedict, L., Fraver, S. R., Reinikainen, M., & Siegert, N. W. (2017). The Precarious State of a Cultural Keystone Species: Tribal and Biological Assessments of the Role and Future of Black Ash. Journal of Forestry, 115(5), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-034R1 Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H. M., & Redman, C. L. (2006). Scale mismatches in social- ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01569-110114 Danby, R. K., Williams, A., & Hik, D. S. (2014). Fifty years of science at the Kluane Lake Research Station. Arctic, 67(5), iii-viii. David-Chavez, D. M., & Gavin, M. C. (2018). A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AAF300 De Beer, J., & Whitlock, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledge in the Life Sciences Classroom: Put on Your deBono Hats! The American Biology Teacher, 71(4), 209–216. 74 De’arman, K. J., & York, R. F. (2021). “Society-Ready” and “Fire-Ready” Forestry Education in the United States: Interdisciplinary Discussion in Forestry Course Textbooks. Journal of Forestry, 119(3), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa062 Degai, T., Petrov, A. N., Badhe, R., Egede Dahl, P. P., Döring, N., Dudeck, S., Hermann, T. M., Golovnev, A., Mack, L., Omma, E. M., Retter, G. B., Saxinger, G., Scheepstra, A. J. M., Shadrin, C. V., Shorty, N., & Strawhacker, C. (2022). Shaping Arctic’s Tomorrow through Indigenous Knowledge Engagement and Knowledge Co-Production. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14031331 Dewalt, B. R. (1994). Using Indigenous Knowledge to Improve Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. The Society for Applied Anthropology, 53(2), 123–131. Dockry, M. J., & Hoagland, S. J. (2017). A special issue of the journal of forestry— tribal forest management: Innovations for sustainable forest management. Journal of Forestry, 115(5), 339–340. https://doi.org/10.5849/JOF-2017-040 Dockry, M. J., Gutterman, S. A., & Davenport, M. A. (2018). Building Bridges: Perspectives on Partnership and Collaboration from the US Forest Service Tribal Relations Program. Journal of Forestry, 116(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.5849/JOF-2016-106 Dockry, M. J., Hall, K., Van Lopik, W., & Caldwell, C. M. (2016). Sustainable development education, practice, and research: an Indigenous model of sustainable development at the College of Menominee Nation, Keshena, WI, USA. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 127– 138. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-015-0304-X Doerfler, J. (2013). Eko-bezhig Bagijigan: Stories as Roots. In J. Doerfler, N. J. Sinclair, & H. K. Stark (Eds.), Centering Anishinaabeg Studies: Understanding the World Through Stories. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press. Dunning, K. H. (2017). Missing the trees for the forest? Bottom-up policy implementation and adaptive management in the US natural resource bureaucracy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(6), 1036–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1197105 Dupuis, J., & Abrams, E. (2017). Student science achievement and the integration of Indigenous knowledge on standardized tests. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 581–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9728-6 Emery, M. R., Wrobel, A., Hansen, M. H., Dockry, M., Moser, W. K., Stark, K. J., & Gilbert, J. H. (2014). Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Basis for Targeted Forest Inventories: Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) in the US Great Lakes Region. Journal of Forestry, 112(2), 207–214. 75 Fa, J. E., Watson, J. E., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T. D., Burgess, N. D., Molnár, Z., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Duncan, T., Wang, S., Austin, B. J., Jonas, H., Robinson, C. J., Malmer, P., Zander, K. K., Jackson, M. v, Ellis, E., Brondizio, E. S., & Garnett, S. T. (2020). Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(3), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/FEE.2148 Fischer, A. M., Mosurska, A., Tarancon, A. A., & Figus, E. (2022). The Kake Climate Partnership: Implementing a knowledge co-production framework to provide climate services in Southeast Alaska. Frontiers in Climate. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.885494 Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 From, E., & Margins, T. H. E. (2019). EMERGING FROM THE MARGINS: Gain, A. K., Sarwar Hossain, M., Benson, D., Di Baldassarre, G., Giupponi, C., & Huq, N. (2020). Social-ecological system approaches for water resources management. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1780647 Gallop, C. J., & Bastien, N. (2016). Supporting Success: Aboriginal Students in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue Canadienne, 46(2), 206–224. Gervais, B. K., Voirin, C. R., Beatty, C., Bulltail, G., Cowherd, S., Defrance, S., Dorame, B., Gutteriez, R., Lackey, J., Lupe, C., Negrette, A. B., Robbins Sherman, N. C., Swaney, R., Tso, K., Victor, M., Wilson, R., Yazzie, K., Long, J. W., & Hoagland, S. J. (2017). Native American Student Perspectives of Challenges in Natural Resource Higher Education. Society of American Foresters, 115(5), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-065R1 Getty, G. A. (2010). The Journey Between Western and Indigenous Research Paradigms. Theory Department Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 21(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659609349062 Gone, J. P. (2019). Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418787545 Guillory, R. M. (2009). American Indian/Alaska Native College Student Retention Strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(2), 14–22. Handayani, R. D., Wilujeng, I., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2018). Elaborating Indigenous knowledge in the Science Curriculum for the Cultural Sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(2), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2018-0016 76 Harding, A., Harper, B., Stone, D., Neill, C. O., Berger, P., & Harris, S. (2012). Conducting Research with Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics, and Data-Sharing Issues. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(1), 6–10. Harvey, A., & Russell-Mundine, G. (2018). Decolonizing the curriculum: using graduate qualities to embed Indigenous knowledges at the academic cultural interface. Teaching in Higher Education Critical Perspectives, 24(6), 789–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1508131 Harvey, B., Cochrane, L., & van Epp, M. (2019). Charting knowledge co-production pathways in climate and development. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/EET.1834 Head, R. R. (2019). 5 Story as Indigenous Methodology. 94–108. Herman‐Mercer, N., Andre, A., Buschman, V., Blaskey, D., Brooks, C., Cheng, Y., Combs, E., Cozzetto, K., Fitka, S., Koch, J., Lawlor, A., Moses, E., Murray, E., Mutter, E., Newman, A. J., Prince, C., Salmon, P., Tlen, J., Toohey, R., … Musselman, K. N. (2023). The Arctic Rivers Project: Using an Equitable Co‐Production Framework for Integrating Meaningful Community Engagement and Science to Understand Climate Impacts. Community Science, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022csj000024 Hewson, M. G. (2012). Traditional healers’ views on their Indigenous knowledge and the science curriculum. African Journal of Research in MST Education, 16(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2012.10740748 Hill, R., Walsh, F. J., Davies, J., Sparrow, A., Mooney, M., Wise, R. M., & Tengö, M. (2020). Knowledge co-production for Indigenous adaptation pathways: Transform post-colonial articulation complexes to empower local decision-making. Global Environmental Change, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2020.102161 Holling, C. S. (2013). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change, 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Holtgren, M., Ogren, S., & Whyte, K. (2015). Renewing Relatives: One tribe’s efforts to bring back an ancient fish. Earth Island Journal, 30(15), 54–57. Jacob, M. M., Sabzalian, L., Jansen, J., Tobin, T. J., Vincent, C. G., & LaChance, K. M. (2018). The gift of education: How Indigenous knowledges can transform the future of public education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(1), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1534 77 Janowiak, M. K., Iverson, L. R., Mladenoff, D. J., Peters, E., Wythers, K. R., Xi, W., Brandt, L. A., Butler, P. R., Handler, S. D., Shannon, P. D., Swanston, C., Parker, L. R., Amman, A. J., Bogaczyk, B., Handler, C., Lesch, E., Reich, P. B., Matthews, S., Peters, M., … Ziel, Robert. (2014). Forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 247 p., 136, 1– 247. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-136 Jose, S., Jokela, E. J., Miller, D. L., & Jokela, J. (2006). The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30687-2 Kalafatis, S. E., Neosh, J., Libarkin, J. C., Whyte, K. P., & Caldwell, C. (2019). Experiential learning processes informing climate change decision support. Weather, Climate, and Society, 11(3), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-19-0002.1 Kaya, H. O., & Seleti, N. (2013). African Indigenous knowledge systems and relevance of higher education in South Africa. In The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives (Vol. 12, Issue 1). www.iejcomparative.org Kidman, J., Yen, C.-F., & Abrams, E. (2013). Indigenous Students’ Experiences of the Hidden Curriculum in Science Education: A Cross-National Study in New Zealand and Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 43–64. Kim, M. (2017). Indigenous knowledge in Canadian science curricula: cases from Western Canada. Cultural Studies of Science Education2, 12, 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9759-z Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action. BioScience, 52(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0432:wtekib]2.0.co;2 Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions. King, B. T. (2019). The Art of Indigenous Knowledge: A Million Porcupines Crying in the Dark. 14–26. Koban, J. (2020). Walleye Wars and Pedagogical Management: Cooperative Rhetorics of Responsibility in Response to Settler Colonialism. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 50(5), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2020.1813324 Kolesar, S. E., Ruggiero, P., Tullos, D., Tilt, J. H., Tilt, B., & Thompson, B. M. (2024). Challenges and Strategies for Knowledge Co-Production in Ecosystem and Natural Hazards Research. The Oceanography Society, 37(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/27301077 78 Kovach, M. (2010). Epistemology and Research: Centering Tribal Knowledge. In Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts (pp. 55–74). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Kovach, M. (2010). Situating Self, Culture, and Purpose in Indigenous Inquiry. In Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts (pp. 109–120). University of Toronto Press. Kruijf, J. V. de, Verbrugge, L., Schröter, B., den Haan, R. J., Cortes Arevalo, J., Fliervoet, J., Henze, J., & Albert, C. (2022). Knowledge co-production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects. Sustainable Development, 30(2), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.2281 Lambert, L. (2014). Research for survival: Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral Sciences. Brantford, ON: Salish Kootenai College Press. Lastra Landa, D. E., & Bueno, C. V. G. (2021). “Climate change might have caused our small harvest”: Indigenous vulnerability, livelihoods, and environmental changes in lowland and high jungle Indigenous communities in Peru. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13412-021-00722-0 Latulippe, N., & Klenk, N. (2020). Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Environmental Sustainability, 42, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010 Lemieux, C. J., Thompson, J., Slocombe, D. S., & Schuster, R. (2015). Climate change collaboration among natural resource management agencies: lessons learned from two US regions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(4), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.876392 Lewis, D. R. (1995). Native Americans and the Environment: A Survey of Twentieth-Century Issues. American Indian Quarterly, 19(3), 423. https://doi.org/10.2307/1185599 Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., … Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513–1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004 Maclean, K., Woodward, E., Jarvis, D., Turpin, G., Rowland, D., & Rist, P. (2022). Decolonizing knowledge co-production: examining the role of positionality and partnerships to support Indigenous-led bush product enterprises in northern Australia. Sustainability Science, 17(2), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-021-00973- 4/METRICS Manuel-Navarrete, D., Buzinde, C. N., & Swanson, T. (2021). Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with Indigenous people by leveraging researchers’ transdisciplinary intentions. Ecology and Society, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12265-260222 79 Marin, A. M. (2019). Seeing together: The ecological knowledge of Indigenous families in Chicago urban forest walks. In Language and Cultural Practices in Communities and Schools: Bridging Learning for Students from Non-Dominant Groups (pp. 41–58). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429486708-3 Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2018). “Look It, This is how You Know:” Family Forest Walks as a Context for Knowledge-Building About the Natural World. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1429443 McCarter, J., & Gavin, M. C. (2011). Perceptions of the value of traditional ecological knowledge to formal school curricula: opportunities and challenges from Malekula Island, Vanuatu. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 7(38), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-7-38 McConnell, W. J., Millington, J. D. A., Reo, N. J., Alberti, M., Asbjornsen, H., Baker, L. A., … Pontius, R. G. (2011). Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CHANS): Approach, Challenges, and Strategies. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 92(2), 218–228. McGinnis, M., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387- 190230 McGreavy, B., Ranco, D., Daigle, J., Greenlaw, S., Altvater, N., Quiring, T., Michelle, N., Paul, J., Binette, M., Benson, B., Sutton, A., & Hart, D. (2021). Science in Indigenous homelands: addressing power and justice in sustainability science from/with/in the Penobscot River. Sustainability Science, 16, 937–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- 021-00904-3 McGregor, D. (2019). Anishinaabe Environmental Knowledge. In Contemporary Studies in Environmental and Indigenous Pedagogies: A Curricula of Stories and Place (pp. 77–88). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. McGregor, H. E., Madden, B., Higgins, M., & Ostertag, J. (2018). Braiding Designs for Decolonizing Research Methodologies: Theory, Practice, Ethics. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.2781 McKinley, E. (2020). The cultural interface tension: doing Indigenous work in the academy. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(2), 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422- 019-09963-6 McKnight, E. (2017). Characterizing and Monitoring the Water Properties and Dynamics of Lhù’ààn Män (Kluane Lake), Yukon, in the Face of Climate Change. Arctic, 70(4), 435- 440. McMurchy-Pilkington, C., Pikiao, N., & Rongomai, N. (2008). Indigenous people: Emancipatory possibilities in curriculum development. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(3), 614–638. 80 Mehta, K., Alter, T. R., Semali, L. M., & Maretzki, A. (2021). AcademIK Connections: Bringing Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives into the Classroom. Merrill, J. (2013). Climate Change and its Effect on Indigenous Peoples of the Southwest. American Indian Law Review, 38(1), 225–259. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailrhttp://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol38/iss1/6 Meyer, J. (2019). Are We Producing Society-Ready Foresters? A Quantitative Content Analysis of Graduate-Level Forestry Curriculum. The Pegasus Review, 11(1), 24–37. www.URJ.ucf.edu Mihesuah, J. K. (2004). Graduating Indigenous Students by Confronting the Academic Environment. In J. K. Mihesuah & A. C. Wilson (Eds.), Indigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities (pp. 191–199). University of Nebraska Press. Moezzi, M., Janda, K. B., & Rotmann, S. (2017). Using stories, narratives, and storytelling in energy and climate change research. Energy Research and Social Science, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.034 Molnár, Z., & Babai, D. (2021). Inviting ecologists to delve deeper into traditional ecological knowledge. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 36(8), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.006 Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Babai, D., Díaz, S., Garnett, S. T., Hill, R., Bates, P., Brondízio, E. S., Cariño, J., Demeter, L., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Guèze, M., McElwee, P., Öllerer, K., Purvis, A., Reyes-García, V., Samakov, A., & Singh, R. K. (2024). Towards richer knowledge partnerships between ecology and ethnoecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 39(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2023.10.010 Moreton-Robinson, A., & Walter, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies in social Research. Social research methods. Social Research Methods. Morishima, G. S., & Mason, L. (2017). Our Nation’s Forests Need America’s First Stewards. Society of American Foresters, 115(5), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-073 Muller, S., Hemming, S., & Rigney, D. (2019). Indigenous sovereignties: relational ontologies and environmental management. Geographical Research, 57(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12362 Mussett, K. J., Chiblow, S. B., McGregor, D., Whitlow, R., Lauzon, R., Almack, K., Boucher, N., Duncan, A. T., & Reid, A. J. (2023). Wise practices: Indigenous-settler relations in Laurentian Great Lakes fishery governance and water protection. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 49, S12–S21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JGLR.2022.09.010 Nakagawa, S. (2017). Indigenous Research Methodology and the Indigenous Academic. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 37(1), 95–115. 81 Naquin, A., Comardelle, C., Jerolleman, A., Lesen, A. E., Peterson, K., Evans, J., Tooher, E., Mansfield, J., Corum, N., Jessee, N., Kunkel, J., Bainbridge, S., Shao, A., Udvardi, M., Billiot Jr., W. “Boyo,” Dardar, T., & Naquin, D. "J. R. ". (2019). A Community Field Guide to Engagement, Resilience, and Resettlement: Community regeneration in the face of environmental and developmental pressures. Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325, 419–422. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2013.0130 Outley, C. W. (2008). Chapter 12: Perceptions of Agriculture and Natural Resource Careers Among Minority Students in a National Organization. In Recreation Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity (pp. 139–153). Peiser, M. L. (2021). We have always been here: Indigenous scholars in/and eighteenth-century studies. Eighteenth-Century Fiction, 33(2), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.3138/ecf.33.2.181 Prete, T. D. (2019). Beadworking as an Indigenous Research. 4(1), 28–57. Ragoonaden, K., & Mueller, L. (2017). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, 47(2), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46328-5 Ray, L. (2012). Deciphering The “Indigenous” in Indigenous Methodologies. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples2, 8(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718011200800107 Reich, P. B., Matthews, S., Peters, M., … Ziel, Robert. (2014). Forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 247 p., 136, 1–247. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-136 Riley, L., & Johansen, M. (2019). Creating valuable Indigenous learning environments. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 25(3), 287–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1429815 Rowe, A. C., & Tuck, E. (2016). Settler Colonialism and Cultural Studies: Ongoing Settlement, Cultural Production, and Resistance. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 17(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616653693 Ryder, C., MacKean, T., Coombs, J., Williams, H., Hunter, K., Holland, A. J. A., & Ivers, R. Q. (2020). Indigenous research methodology-weaving a research interface. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(3), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1669923 Sample, V. A., Patrick Bixler, R., McDonough, M. H., Bullard, S. H., & Snieckus, M. M. (2015). The Promise and Performance of Forestry Education in the United States: Results of a Survey of Forestry Employers, Graduates, and Educators. Journal of Forestry, 113(6), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-122 82 Schelhas, J. (2002). Race, Ethnicity, and Natural Resources in the United States: A Review. Natural Resources Journal, 42(4), 723–763. Schmidtke, C. (2016). The Role of Academic Student Services in the Retention of American Indian Students at a Sub-Baccalaureate Technical College. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.21061/JCTE.V31I1.1509 Schwabenlander, M. D., Potts, N., Moore, S., Larsen, P. A., Bernstein, L. A., & Wolf, T. M. (2022). Upper Midwest tribal natural resource managers’ perspectives on chronic wasting disease outreach, surveillance, and management. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/CSP2.12710 Sharik, T. L. (2015). Diversifying Student Demographics in Forestry and Related Natural Resources Disciplines. Journal of Forestry, 113(6), 579–580. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-031 Sharik, T. L., Lilieholm, R. J., Lindquist, W., & Richardson, W. W. (2015). Undergraduate Enrollment in Natural Resource Programs in the United States: Trends, Drivers, and Implications for the Future of Natural Resource Professions. Journal of Forestry, 113(6), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-146 Shirley, V. J., & Angulo, D. (2019). Centering Diné Epistemology to Guide the Process. Enacting Indigenous Research Methods, 57–75. Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting Western Research Methods to Indigenous Ways of Knowing. American Journal of Public, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 Singel, W. (2018). Indigenous Responses to Climate Change and Water Quality Concerns in the Great Lakes. Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal, 9(3), 62–68. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/r5-tribal-land-map.pdf Smith, A. (2011, September). Indigenous feminism without apology. Unsettling America, 9. Retrieved from https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/Indigenous feminism without apolo gy/ Smith, J. L., Cech, E., Metz, A., Huntoon, M., & Moyer, C. (2014). Giving Back or Giving Up: Native American Student Experiences in Science and Engineering. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036945 Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books. Smith, L. T. (2019). Towards Developing Indigenous Methodologies: Kaupapa Māori Research. In Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 297–314). 83 Society of American Foresters (SAF). (2018). Accreditation Handbook: Standards, procedures, and guidelines for accrediting educational programs in professional forestry. Society of American Foresters. Song, S., Perry, L. B., & Mcconney, A. (2014). Explaining the achievement gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students: an analysis of PISA 2009 results for Australia and New Zealand. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(3), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.892432 Steen-Adams, M. M., Lake, F. K., Jones, C. E., & Kruger, L. E. (2023). Partnering in research about land management with tribal nations— insights from the Pacific West. https://doi.org/10.2737/PSW-GTR-275 Sungusia, E., Lund, J. F., & Ngaga, Y. (2020). Decolonizing forestry: overcoming the symbolic violence of forestry education in Tanzania. Central African Studies, 12(3), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681392.2020.1788961 Thaman, K. H. (2003). Decolonizing Pacific Studies: Indigenous Perspectives, Knowledge, and Wisdom in Higher Education. The Contemporary Pacific, 15(1), 1–17. Tuck, E. (2009). Re-visioning action: Participatory action research and Indigenous theories of change. Urban Review, 41(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-008-0094-x Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler Futurity. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. In Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society (Vol. 1). Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). Unbecoming Claims: Pedagogies of Refusal in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414530265 Tuck, E., Mckenzie, M., & Mccoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post- colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.877708 Tunón, H., Kvarnström, M., Malmer, Pernilla., Centrum för biologisk mångfald., & NAPTEK. (2015). Report from the project: Indigenous and local knowledge in a scoping study for a Nordic IPBES assessment. Centrum för biologisk mångfald. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4030.6004 Twance, M. (2019). Learning from land and water: exploring mazinaabikiniganan as Indigenous epistemology. Environmental Education Research, 25(9), 1319–1333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1630802 TWC. (2013). Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. The University of Texas. https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=FRNI 84 Ulicsni, V., Babai, D., Vadász, C., Vadász-Besnyői, V., Báldi, A., & Molnár, Z. (2019). Bridging conservation science and traditional knowledge of wild animals: The need for expert guidance and inclusion of local knowledge holders. Ambio, 48(7), 769–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1106-z Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young, T. (2018). Characterizing and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 Verma, P., Vaughan, K., Martin, K., Pulitano, E., Garrett, J., & Piirto, D. D. (2016). Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science into Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Programs. Journal of Forestry, 114(6), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-090 Vose, J. M., Peterson, D. L., & Patel-Weynand, T. (2012). Effects of climatic variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 265 p., 870. https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-870 Warren, R. J., & Vermette, S. (2022). Laurentian Great Lakes warming threatens northern fruit belt refugia. International Journal of Biometeorology, 66(4), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00484-021-02226-6 Watson, I., Aplet, A. E.;, Hendee, G. H.;, & John C. (2000). Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder-ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II. Weaver, K. (2023). Bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge-systems in knowledge co- production with Amazonian Indigenous communities: a systematic realist review. Development Studies Research, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2023.2203842 Wehi, P. M., Kamelamela, K. L., Whyte, K., Watene, K., & Reo, N. (2023). Contribution of Indigenous Peoples’ understandings and relational frameworks to invasive alien species management. People and Nature, 5(5), 1403–1414. https://doi.org/10.1002/PAN3.10508 Weir, J. K., Morgain, R., Moon, K., & Moggridge, B. J. (2024). Centering Indigenous peoples in knowledge exchange research-practice by resetting assumptions, relationships and institutions. Sustainability Science, 19(2), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-023- 01457-3 Wilson, S. (2014). What is an Indigenous Research Methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175–179. Windchief, S., Polacek, C., Munson, M., Ulrich, M., & Cummins, J. D. (2018). In Reciprocity: Responses to Critiques of Indigenous Methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(8). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417743527 85 Wong, C., Ballegooyen, K., Ignace, L., Johnson, M. J., & Swanson, H. (2020). Towards reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada. Https://Doi.Org/10.1139/Facets-2020-0005, 5(1), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2020-0005 Wyllie de Echeverria, V. R., & Thornton, T. F. (2019). Using traditional ecological knowledge to understand and adapt to climate and biodiversity change on the Pacific coast of North America. Ambio, 48(12), 1447–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-019-01218-6 Zurba, M., Petriello, M. A., Madge, C., McCarney, P., Bishop, B., McBeth, S., Denniston, M., Bodwitch, H., & Bailey, M. (2022). Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut. Sustainability Science, 17(2), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-021-00996-X 86 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1) What is your position? 2) What do you think are the biggest natural resource issues facing tribes in the Great Lakes Region right now? 3) Are tribal groups and non-tribal groups facing the same problems? 4) What types of issues (management, funding. Etc.) has your organization run into trying to deal with your natural resource management efforts? 5) Do tribal groups and non-tribal groups have the same challenges in trying to solve these natural resource issues? 6) What natural resource topics or areas do you think need to be researched more? 7) Are you familiar with the term knowledge co-production? 8) Do you think natural resource research should be, or could be, done using knowledge co- production? 9) What benefits do you see with knowledge co-production as a means to understand and manage natural resources? 10) What barriers do you perceive with knowledge co-production? 11) How do you think these barriers can be solved or remedied? Or what could be better? 87 APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONS 1) Please share the most recent copy of your forestry course syllabus here. [upload] 2) We recognize that a syllabus does not capture everything that is incorporated in your course. What Indigenous topics, partners, activities, or other material are missing from your syllabus? 3) Do you incorporate Indigenous guest speakers or visits to tribal nations or territories as part of your class? 4) In what other ways (if any) are students familiarized with Indigenous knowledge and history during your class or the broader forestry curricula? 88 APPENDIX C TEXTBOOKS LISTED IN SYLLABI Required Textbook Ashton, M.S. and Kelty, M.J. (2018) The practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology. 10th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Barcott, B. (2009) The last flight of the scarlet macaw: One woman’s fight to save the world’s Most beautiful bird. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. Barnes, B. V., Dick, C. W., & Gunn, M. E. (2016). Michigan shrubs & vines: A guide to species of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press. Barnes, B.V. and Wagner, W.H. (2004) Michigan Trees: A guide to the trees of the Great Lakes Region. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bettinger, P. et al. (2017) Forest Management and planning. 2nd edn. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. Bolstad, P. and Manson, S. (2022) GIS Fundamentals: A first text on Geographic Information Systems. 7th edn. White Bear Lake, MN: Eider Press. Bowman, W.D. and Hacker, S.D. (2021) Ecology. 5th edn. New York: Sinauer Associates. Brockman, C. F., & Merrilees, R. A. (1968). Trees of North America: A field guide to the major native and introduced species north of Mexico. Golden Press. Bullard, S.H. and Straka, T.J. (2011) Basic concepts in forest valuation and investment analysis. 3rd edn. Clemson, SC: Clemson University. Found Online Mentions Indigenous persons (N=No, Y=Yes, + = Positive, - = Negative, 0=Neutral) N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y- Y- Y+ N Y- N N Table C.1. List of textbooks from Forestry focused courses found on collected syllabi with (1) reference to whether a readable copy was found online, (2) if those found mentioned Indigenous persons, and (3) of those that do mention Indigenous persons if it is negative or positive. 89 Table C.1. (cont’d) Buongiorno, J., & Gilless, J. K. (2003). Decision methods for forest resource management. Academic Press. Burkhart, Avery, and Bullock. (2019). Forest Measurements. 6th edn. Waveland Press, Inc. Burns, R. M., & Honkala, B. H. (1990). Silvics of North America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. Cubbage, F.W., O’Laughlin, J. and Peterson, M.N. (2017) Natural resource policy. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Ferrini, F., Bosch, C. C. K. v. d., & Fini, A. (2017). Routledge handbook of urban forestry. Routledge. Godfrey, R. K. (1988). Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. University of Georgia Press. Hardin, J. W. 1., Leopold, D. J., & White, F. M. (2001). Harlow & Harrar's textbook of dendrology. 9th edn. Boston, McGraw-Hill. Hirons, A. D., & Thomas, P. A. (2018). Applied tree biology. Wiley Blackwell. Hoadley, R. B. (1990). Identifying wood: Accurate results with simple tools. Taunton Press. Jonnes, J. (2016). Urban forests: A natural history of trees and people in the American cityscape. Viking. Jose, S., Jokela, E. J., & Miller, D. (2006). The longleaf pine ecosystem: Ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer. Kashian, D.M. et al. (2023) Forest ecology. 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Leopold, A. (2001). A sand county almanac: With essays on conservation. Oxford University Press. Long, S. (2012) More than a woodlot: Getting the most from your family forest. Corinth, Vt: Northern Woodlands. Miller, R.W., Hauer, R.J. and Werner, L.P. (2015) Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban greenspaces. 3rd edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Nelson, G. (2011) The trees of Florida: A reference and Field Guide. Sarasota, Fla: Pineapple Press. 90 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N N N N Y0 Y- Y- N Y0 Y- Y- N Table C.1. (cont’d) Nyland, R.D. et al. (2016) Silviculture: Concepts and applications. 3rd edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Palik, B., D'Amato, A. W., Franklin, J. F., & Johnson, K. N. (2021). Ecological silviculture: Foundations and applications. Waveland Press, Inc. Putz, F.E. (2015) Finding home in the Sandy Lands of the south: A Naturalist’s journey in Florida. Gainesville, FL: Cypress Highlands Press of Florida. Rosenbaum, W.A. (2019) Environmental politics and policy. 11th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. Shmulsky, R. and Jones, P.D. (2011) Forest Products and wood science. 6th edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, D.M. (1997b) The practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology. 9th edn. New York: Wiley. Waldrop, T.A. and Goodrick, S.L. (2012) Introduction to prescribed fire in southern ecosystems. Ashville, N.C: Southern Research Station. Whitney, E.N., Means, D.B. and Rudloe, A. (2011) Priceless Florida: Natural ecosystems and native species. Sarasota, Fla: Pineapple Press. Zamora, B. (2017). Introduction to Forest and Woodland Ecosystems of North America. Zhang, D., & Pearse, P. H. (2011). Forest economics. UBC Press. N N N Y Y N Y N N N Y0 N Y+ 91