Creative and Critical Studies, Faculty of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Correia, Maria
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
This dissertation explores the concept of ethical space engagement, examining the intricate interplay between Indigenous and Western perspectives in the context of water stewardship in the Syilx Okanagan Territory, British Columbia, Canada. Conducted under the multi-year “Waterways Past, Present, and Future” project, this research involved four separate inquiries that employed qualitative methods to navigate respectful spaces for Indigenous and non-Indigenous interactions. The dissertation comprises four manuscripts. The first presents a case study on the restoration of sockeye salmon through a tripartite Syilx-Federal-Provincial co-management arrangement; the second examines the divergent and convergent perspectives of the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities on water governance and stewardship and implications for an ‘ethical space’ for engagement; the third explores the intersection of Western-oriented co-design and Indigenous research methodologies applied in the Waterways research and exhibition; and the fourth presents an evaluation of the Waterways exhibition and its effectiveness in creating a reflective space to engage with diverse water ontologies applying visual matrix tool. These manuscripts collectively reveal the complexities of cross-cultural collaboration in the Okanagan, centering around four main themes: ethical space as a multifaceted concept for cross-cultural understanding, the pivotal role of Syilx rights and self-determination in water governance, the collaborative concept of traditional ecological knowledge, and two-eyed seeing as a method for bridging cultural and methodological divides. The research contributes to the literature on Indigenous governance, emphasizing the importance of self-determination and Indigenous rights as it relates to water stewardship. It advocates for the conceptual and practical use of ethical space and two-eyed seeing, along with the application of traditional ecological knowledge, to foster balanced and sustainable collaborations in water stewardship.
NAVIGATING CROSS-CULTURAL CONFLUENCES: ETHICAL SPACE ENGAGEMENTS ON HUMAN-WATER RELATIONS IN THE OKANAGAN by Maria Correia B.S.F., The University of British Columbia, 1981 M.B.A., New Mexico Highlands University, 1986 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) (Sustainability) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) April 2024 © Maria Correia, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Navigating Cross-Cultural Confluences: Ethical Space Engagements on Human-Water Relations in the Okanagan submitted by Maria Correia in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dr. Aleksandra Dulic, Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies Supervisor Dr. Greg Garrard, Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies Supervisory Committee Member Dr. John Janmaat, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Bill Cohen, Okanagan School of Education University Examiner Dr. Doris Sáez, University of Chile External Examiner iii Abstract This dissertation explores the concept of ethical space engagement, examining the intricate interplay between Indigenous and Western perspectives in the context of water stewardship in the Syilx Okanagan Territory, British Columbia, Canada. Conducted under the multi-year “Waterways Past, Present, and Future” project, this research involved four separate inquiries that employed qualitative methods to navigate respectful spaces for Indigenous and non-Indigenous interactions. The dissertation comprises four manuscripts. The first presents a case study on the restoration of sockeye salmon through a tripartite Syilx-Federal-Provincial co-management arrangement; the second examines the divergent and convergent perspectives of the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities on water governance and stewardship and implications for an ‘ethical space’ for engagement; the third explores the intersection of Western-oriented co-design and Indigenous research methodologies applied in the Waterways research and exhibition; and the fourth presents an evaluation of the Waterways exhibition and its effectiveness in creating a reflective space to engage with diverse water ontologies applying visual matrix tool. These manuscripts collectively reveal the complexities of cross-cultural collaboration in the Okanagan, centering around four main themes: ethical space as a multifaceted concept for cross-cultural understanding, the pivotal role of Syilx rights and self-determination in water governance, the collaborative concept of traditional ecological knowledge, and two-eyed seeing as a method for bridging cultural and methodological divides. The research contributes to the literature on Indigenous governance, emphasizing the importance of self-determination and Indigenous rights as it relates to water stewardship. It advocates for the conceptual and practical use of ethical space and two-eyed seeing, along with the application of traditional ecological knowledge, to foster balanced and sustainable collaborations in water stewardship. iv Lay Summary This dissertation examines cross-cultural collaboration in British Columbia’s Syilx Okanagan Territory, emphasizing water stewardship and ethical space. It includes four studies: the first investigates the joint efforts of the Syilx, federal, and provincial groups in reviving sockeye salmon populations; the second delves into the varied yet overlapping water governance views of the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities, introducing the concept of ‘ethical space’ for respectful interaction. The third study assesses the integration of Western and Indigenous research methods in the Waterways project and museum exhibition. The fourth evaluates the sensory perceptions of the exhibition. The thesis highlights the intricacies of cross-cultural collaboration, exploring the practical application of ethical space, the significance of Syilx rights and self-determination in water governance, the shared importance of traditional ecological knowledge, and the use of “two-eyed seeing” as a bridge between cultural differences. v Preface All of the work presented henceforth was conducted at the Center for Culture and Technology at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus. All projects and associated methods were approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board [H17-01017]. A version of Chapter 2 has been submitted for publication with co-authors Alexis, S. and Dulic, A. in Ecology and Society, forthcoming. I was the lead investigator, responsible for all major areas of concept formation, data collection, analysis, and manuscript composition. Alexis S. was involved in concept formation, interviewing, and contributed to manuscript edits. Dulic A. was the supervisory author on this project and was involved throughout the project in concept formation and manuscript composition. A version of Chapter 3 has been submitted for publication to the International Indigenous Policy Journal with co-authors Alexis, S., Glo, M., Suresh, S., and Dulic, A. I was the lead investigator, responsible for all major areas of concept formation, data collection and analysis, and manuscript composition. Alexis, S. was responsible for interviewing and conceptualization, Glo, M. was involved in conceptualization, interviewing, and data analysis; Suresh, S. was involved in data management and analysis. Dulic A. was the supervisory author on this project and was involved throughout the project in concept formation and manuscript composition. A version of Chapter 4 has been submitted for publication with co-authors Alexis, S. and Dulic, A. in Qualitative Research, forthcoming. I was the lead investigator, responsible for all major areas of concept formation, data collection and analysis, and manuscript composition. Alexis S. was involved in data collection and analysis and contributed to manuscript edits. Dulic vi A. was the supervisory author on this project and was involved throughout the project in concept formation and manuscript composition. A version of Chapter 5 has been accepted for conference publication with co-author Dulic, A. for the 29th International Symposium on Electronic Art in Brisbane Australia (21-29 June 2024). I was the lead investigator, responsible for concept formation, data collection and analysis, and manuscript composition. Dulic A. was the supervisory author on this project and was involved throughout the project in concept formation and manuscript composition. Appendix A and B, “A Networked Multi-channel Audio and Video Authoring and Display System for Immersive Recombinatory Media Installations” (Conference Paper), and “Okanagan Waterways Past, Present and Future: Approaching Sustainability through Immersive Museum Exhibition” (Journal Article), respectively, are papers for which I was a co-author. For both, I contributed written content. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii Dedication .....................................................................................................................................xv Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Research Context ............................................................................................ 4 1.3 Methodology and Methods ........................................................................... 18 1.4 Methods......................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 2: Bringing the Salmon Home: A study of cross-cultural collaboration in the Syilx Okanagan Territory of British Columbia (Manuscript 1) ...................................................... 26 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 27 2.2 Conceptual Background ................................................................................ 29 2.3 Methods......................................................................................................... 37 2.4 Findings ........................................................................................................ 40 2.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 56 2.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 60 viii Chapter 3: The Undercurrents of Water Stewardship in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley: Setting the stage for ethical space engagement (Manuscript 2) ............................... 62 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 63 3.2 Background ................................................................................................... 65 3.4 Methods......................................................................................................... 72 3.5 Findings ........................................................................................................ 75 3.6 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 86 3.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 4: Indigenizing collaborative methods in studying human-water relations in the Syilx Okanagan Territory of British Columbia, Canada (Manuscript 3) ............................. 91 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 91 4.2 Western Methodologies ................................................................................ 94 4.3 Indigenous Methodologies .......................................................................... 102 4.4 Waterways: Past Present and Future ........................................................... 109 4.5 Discussion ................................................................................................... 122 4.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 125 4.7 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... 126 Chapter 5: The Sensual Experience of Waterways Immersive Exhibition: applying the visual matrix evaluatory method (Manuscript 4) .................................................................. 127 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 127 5.2 Methods....................................................................................................... 133 5.3 Results ......................................................................................................... 134 5.4 The Visual Matrix as an Evaluatory Method .............................................. 140 ix 5.5 Discussion ................................................................................................... 141 5.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 143 Chapter 6: Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 144 6.1 Synopsis ...................................................................................................... 144 6.2 Implications for Cross-Cultural Collaboration ........................................... 154 6.3 Limitations .................................................................................................. 156 6.4 Reflections and Future Research ................................................................ 158 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................162 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................204 Appendix A. A Networked Multi-channel Audio and Video Authoring and Display System for Immersive Recombinatory Media Installations (Conference Paper) (Thorogood et al., 2022) .......................................................................................... 204 Appendix B. Okanagan Waterways Past, Present and Future: Approaching Sustainability through Immersive Museum Exhibition ........................................... 205 x List of Tables Table 2.1 Analysis of cross-cultural collaboration in the Okanagan Sockeye Salmon Program…………………………………………………………………………………………. 43 xi List of Figures Figure 1.1 Okanagan Water Basin in Canada ................................................................... 17 Figure 2.1 Syilx Okanagan Territory.. .............................................................................. 34 Figure 2.2 The Spatial Lifecycle of Anadromous Sockeye Salmon ................................. 35 Figure 4.1 Images of Okanagan Landscapes .................................................................. 110 Figure 4.2 Drawing of Waterways Exhibition Floorplan ............................................... 114 Figure 4.3 Waterways Exhibition Inner Space ............................................................... 115 Figure 4.4 Waterways 3D Visualization Images from Mill Creek Ecosystem ............... 117 Figure 4.5 Photographs of Cottonwood Species and Syilx Salmon Ceremonies ........... 121 Figure 6.1 The Concept of Two-Eyed Seeing ................................................................ 153 xii List of Abbreviations AWG Ad hoc Working Group BC British Columbia COBTWG Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DRIPA Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act FLNRORD Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operation and Rural Development OBWB Okanagan Basin Water Board ONA Okanagan Nation Alliance TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge TRC Truth and Reconciliation Committee UBCO University of British Columbia Okanagan UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples xiii Acknowledgements I extend my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Aleksandra Dulic, for her unwavering assistance, encouragement, and inspiration throughout my five-year journey. Opening up opportunities for me to learn about Indigenous issues in Canada has profoundly altered my worldview, for which I am most grateful. My gratitude goes to my committee members, Dr. Greg Garrard and Dr. John Janmaat, for their guidance, time, and wisdom at crucial moments of my PhD experience. I would also like to thank Scott Boswell, my external advisor, for his consistent support from the beginning to the end of this undertaking. I am grateful to UBC Okanagan, SSHRC, Mitacs, the Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program, and the Killam Laureates Scholarship Program, for generous funding support. This journey has been one of significant personal growth, and I am thankful to everyone who contributed to my development. A special heartfelt thanks to Sarah Alexis, a co-investigator and friend, who provided invaluable insights on Syilx ‘ways of knowing’ and who always made herself available to me, despite her own heavy commitments. Her wisdom has been a guiding light. I also want to acknowledge my co-authors, especially Marcello Glo, for their crucial contributions to the research papers. To all participants in my research, particularly the members of the Syilx Okanagan community, their willingness to share perspectives and knowledge was central to my work. I extend my thanks to my friends and family, especially to my daughter Molly, whose encouragement to finish the PhD reminded me of life’s other priorities. My sister, Fatima, also a Ph.D. traveler, deserves special recognition for her unwavering support and willingness to endure my trials and tribulations and urge me on, even as she recovered from surgery in the xiv hospital. Immense gratitude is owed to my partner, Peter, for encouraging me to embark on this PhD journey. With his patience, insightful and critical feedback on countless drafts, and compassionate support, he has been my rock. Lastly, I am grateful for my dear, sweet Daisy, who has been a constant companion at my side. Her playful interruptions demanding fetching sessions were both a welcome and, at times, distracting diversion amidst the challenges and uncertainties. xv Dedication I dedicate this work to my parents, Lidia and Amadeu, who settled in the Okanagan in the 1950s to pursue a better life for themselves and their children. Unbeknownst to them, this move placed my family within a colonial context from which we inadvertently benefited. This PhD journey has been a continual reckoning with this uncomfortable truth. Yet, it also stands as a testament to their hard work and dedication. Their efforts have allowed me to live, work, and grow on the beautiful Syilx Okanagan territory, a privilege I deeply appreciate and acknowledge. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction In an era increasingly defined by multifaceted global challenges, the imperative for collaboration emerges as an indispensable component in navigating the intricacies and interdependencies characteristic of the contemporary world (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Water management, historically a complex and contentious issue, has gained increased urgency in light of escalating demands fueled by population growth and energy and food production (Cosgrove & Loucks, 2015; du Plessis, 2023; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2016; UNESCO, 2023). Water crises and stress will have the highest level of societal impact over the next decade (World Economic Forum, 2015), with the rate of global water use increasing more than twice as fast as population growth in recent years (Cosgrove & Loucks, 2015). The growing disparity between water supply and demand, exacerbated by unsustainable consumption rates, presents a critical global challenge, with the future landscape of water availability and usage shrouded in uncertainty. This evolving scenario calls for a paradigm shift in water stewardship and collaborative approaches that reconcile the diverse needs and perspectives of diverse user groups, including those with competing interests and differing water values. In Canada, the intersection of these global trends with the nation’s colonial history and ongoing debates over water rights in Indigenous territories further complicates the water stewardship landscape. Conflicts pertaining to water and water rights emerge as focal points of contention with Indigenous peoples (Boelens et al., 2010; Curran, 2019; S. Stevenson, 2019). These conflicts are deeply rooted in varying ontological perspectives on water, historical colonial legacies, and diverse approaches to environmental stewardship across cultural groups (D. McGregor, 2021a; D. McGregor, Sritharan, et al., 2023; Sam, 2013). Water stewardship requires navigating these complexities and building an understanding of human-water relations and the 2 ontological space of water governance, including persistent water ontological disjunctures, and water governance plurality (Yates et al., 2017). At the core of this contemporary discourse on Indigenous-non-Indigenous collaboration lies the notion of ‘ethical space,’ a dynamic framework designed to recognize and honor the distinct worldviews and values of Indigenous communities while simultaneously facilitating meaningful collaboration with non-Indigenous groups (Bridge, 2023b; Ermine, 2007; Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). Closely related to this is the concept of ‘two-eyed seeing,’ an approach fundamentally anchored in the principles of reconciliation and mutual respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous epistemologies (Bartlett et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2019). Both these paradigms are gaining traction in the sphere of Indigenous-non-Indigenous collaborations, with a view to amplifying respectful dialogue and engagement, weaving Indigenous wisdom and Western scientific insights, and reinforcing Indigenous leadership and self-determination (Littlechild & Sutherland, 2021; Wright et al., 2019). The Okanagan Valley in British Columbia, Canada, presents a unique opportunity to study cross-cultural collaboration as it relates to water and ethical space. The Okanagan is home to the Syilx Okanagan peoples, whose territory is unceded and whose relationship with the land and water is deeply rooted in their cultural and spiritual beliefs. The Okanagan landscape has been significantly transformed since colonization, a result of development-motivated land use practices and population growth that began in the mid 19th century and has continued to the present (J. Wagner, 2008). These practices have led to wetlands and riparian systems being destroyed, ecosystems harmed, and biodiversity lost (J. Wagner, 2008; J. R. Wagner & White, 2009), including major losses to the local fisheries that have been a staple of the Syilx Okanagan Indigenous people (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). Climate change has compounded these 3 ecological issues, as evidenced by the increased frequency of extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, and wildfires, which have reached heightened levels in British Columbia (Burn et al., 2011; Parisien et al., 2023). Water is a singular concern in the Okanagan, which is classified as semi-arid, has the lowest per-person water supply in Canada, is one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada (outpacing prior predictions), and, as elsewhere, is subject to the vulnerabilities of climate change (OBWB, n.d.-c).1 1.1 Objectives This dissertation examines cross-cultural collaboration on water stewardship in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, through four distinct but related research inquiries: ¾ The first presents a case study of a successful cross-cultural collaboration to restore Sockeye salmon populations in the Okanagan waterways by examining the role of the 20-year-plus co-management arrangement involving the Syilx Okanagan Nation and the provincial and federal governments. ¾ The second examines the collective positionalities of Syilx and non-Indigenous communities on water stewardship, focusing on identifying divergent and 1 Throughout the paper, the term Okanagan refers to the name of the Syilx Okanagan people and to the geographic location (valley, lake, river) of the Syilx Nation’s traditional lands. According to the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada website, “Indigenous peoples” is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. “Aboriginal peoples” is also used, with the Canadian Constitution recognizing three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (more commonly referred to as First Nations), Inuit and Métis (Government of Canada 2023). These terms are capitalized in accordance with guidelines for writing about Indigenous Peoples (Younging, 2018). Aboriginal and Indigenous are used interchangeably in this document. I use the word “Indigenous” acknowledging that it does not represent a monolithic group with uniform values, beliefs, or ways of thinking. Instead, it encompasses a vast plurality of experiences, knowledge systems, and worldviews. This acknowledgment aligns with the literature’s nuanced understanding of the term and respecting the individuality and sovereignty of each Indigenous community and person discussed in this work. 4 convergent viewpoints, the interplay of these perspectives, and the implications for ethical space engagement. ¾ The third examines Western-oriented co-design and Indigenous research methods and methodological principles as manifested in a non-Indigenous Syilx collaborative research inquiry and museum installation on human-water relations in the Okanagan, entitled ‘Waterways.’ ¾ The fourth presents the results of an evaluation aimed at identifying how the Waterways Exhibition facilitates access to the emotional and cross-cultural significances of water and creates a space for reflection on the diversity of water ontologies. As a manuscript dissertation, the research will draw on several theoretical frameworks related to Indigenous co-management, collaborative research methods, and Indigenous methodologies. Common across all the research papers is the application of a decolonizing lens and qualitative methods. 1.2 Research Context This section outlines the research underpinnings of the dissertation in two distinct sections. The initial, more extensive section offers an overview of relevant literature, encompassing collaboration, environmental collaboration, cross-cultural collaboration within Indigenous contexts, non-Indigenous and Indigenous perspectives on water, ethical space, and two-eyed seeing. A section that follows presents a concise overview of the research area, setting the stage for the research inquiry. 5 1.2.1 Conceptual Background 1.2.1.1 Collaboration The scholarly literature on collaboration is vast and reaches into several fields. Habermasian theories of deliberative democracy are references in the context of participatory action research (Kemmis et al., 2014). Habermas’ concepts, such as communicative action, which emphasizes dialogue for mutual understanding and consensus, align closely with the collaborative and inclusive nature of action research. In the context of collaboration, Habermasian theories hold several key principles with their emphasis on open, inclusive, rational, and ethical dialogue aimed at consensus building and a strong respect for individual and group autonomy (Finlayson & Rees, 2023). In management and administration, early writing on collaboration focused on dynamic processes in complex organizational and institutional settings (Holley et al., 2012), with Barbara Gray’s seminal work in 1985, particularly her book “Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems,” often used as reference point (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Baird et al., 2016; Lemos & Agrawal, 2006). Gray defines collaboration as the pooling of tangible and intangible resources by multiple individuals or groups to solve a set of problems that neither can solve on an individual basis. She sets out a process model for collaboration that includes three phases – problem-setting, direction-setting, and structuring – and proposes conditions for achieving collaboration based on organization theory, policy analysis, and organizational development. In Gray’s (1989) comprehensive overview of collaboration in the context of multiparty problems, she notes the following considerations: the complexity of groups and individuals involved and the manner in which these entities change and their proximity; the interdependence of these 6 groups and individuals and the power dynamics between them; the perceived legitimacy of collaboration and the characteristics of the conveners; and historical power relations, including trust. Her insights on cultural sensitivity and understanding, conflict resolution and trust building, consensus building in complex scenarios, adaptive and flexible approaches, integrated knowledge systems, and long-term engagement and relationship building, are all relevant for cross-cultural collaboration in Indigenous settings. In the environmental realm, collaboration and multi-actor collaboration have become commonplace (Agrawal & Lemos, 2007; Lemos & Agrawal, 2006) given that environmental issues are inherently complex and interdisciplinary and often transcend national borders (Keohane & Victor, 2010) (Lubchenco, 1998). The rationale for environmental collaboration is multifold. These include pooling diverse resources, knowledge, and expertise (Biermann et al., 2012; Elinor Ostrom, 2010) and fostering innovation and creative problem-solving through the diversity of perspectives and skills (Page, 2008). The rapid pace of information exchange in today’s interconnected world further underscores the value of collaborative networks for agile and informed decision-making (Castells, 2009). In social-ecological systems, collaboration can enhance resilience and adaptability (Carl Folke et al., 2010) and facilitate systems thinking to understand and address the intricate interdependencies inherent in complex problems (Meadows, 2008). By leveraging collective intelligence, collaborative efforts also harness a group’s combined insights, surpassing the capabilities of individual entities (T. W. Malone & Bernstein, 2022) and fostering cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary engagement (Tushman & O'Reilly, 2002). The challenges to environmental collaboration, however, are equally multifold. Multijurisdictional issues present one layer of complexity, with issues arising when 7 environmental resources, such as rivers, forests, or airsheds, span across different jurisdictions, be they administrative, political, or geographical boundaries (Örjan Bodin, 2017; Cash et al., 2006; Young & Gasser, 2002). The challenges lie in harmonizing varying legal frameworks, policies, and management approaches that may exist across these jurisdictions. Disharmony often leads to conflicts in priorities, inconsistencies in environmental standards, and difficulties in enforcing regulations effectively (Bulkeley, 2014). Collaboration frequently entails navigating bureaucratic and institutional hurdles that can stifle effective decision-making and impede adaptive management strategies (Elinor Ostrom, 2009; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012). Additionally, the pervasive issue of power imbalances between groups, especially between marginalized communities and more dominant groups, can lead to inequitable participation and outcomes in environmental initiatives (Armitage et al., 2007; Young & Gasser, 2002). This inequality is exacerbated by the historical and ongoing impacts of colonialism, which continue to influence land use decisions and resource allocation, particularly in settler-colonial states (Curran, 2019; Blaser et al., 2004) as well as divergent ontologies and values associated with environmental resources and paradigms (Berkes, 2009b; Nadasdy, 2003a). 1.2.1.2 Cross-cultural collaboration in Indigenous settings Indigenous peoples and local communities around the world are increasingly asserting ‘Indigenous agency’ to engage with government institutions and other partners with a view to collaboratively stewarding their ancestral lands (Winter et al., 2021). The literature on cross-cultural collaboration as it pertains to Indigenous peoples is broad, drawing across anthropology, sociology, Indigenous studies, intercultural communication, environmental studies, and organizational behavior. Alfred (2005) argues for a fundamental reassessment of the role of 8 Indigenous knowledge and for genuine cross-cultural collaboration, which respects and integrates Indigenous perspectives. He calls for the restoration of Indigenous knowledge in practice and policy while critiquing the concept of reconciliation, which he sees as a patronizing approach that does not address the deeper issues faced by Indigenous peoples. He advocates for recognizing and integrating Indigenous knowledge within research, policy, and practice, challenging the historical marginalization of Indigenous perspectives. His work underscores the importance of collaborative and multi-method approaches that center Indigenous voices and experiences, aiming to improve cultural connection and address the impact of colonization on Indigenous communities. In “Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition,” Coulthard (2014) reflects on collaboration in the context of Indigenous self-determination and self-governance, arguing that this should not be limited to the framework of recognition within the existing colonial state. He advocates for a resurgence of Indigenous political traditions and a reclamation of land and life that challenges the colonial structures of power and control. In “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” Wolfe (2006) writes that settler colonialism is structured around the “logic of elimination,” which continues to perpetuate the erasure of Indigenous peoples rather than being a historical event in the past. This framework of settler colonialism is characterized by the dispossession of Indigenous lands, resources, and cultures and normalizes the continuous settler occupation, exploiting lands and resources to which Indigenous peoples have genealogical relationships. These perspectives have significant implications for cross-cultural collaboration, as they underscore the deep-rooted power dynamics and the ongoing impact of settler colonialism on Indigenous peoples, which must be recognized and addressed in any collaborative effort. 9 Similarly, Moreton-Robinson’s (2015) scholarly work challenges the pervasive influence of whiteness and its role in the ongoing project of settler colonialism, providing important conceptual tools to rethink how we interpret and contest settler sovereignty today and into the future. Her work sheds light on the ways in which the nation is socially and culturally rooted in ‘Britishness’ and colonization, which continues to disavow Indigenous sovereignty. Overall, her work provides a critical lens through which to examine the dynamics of settler colonialism and the complexities of cross-cultural collaboration. Similarly, L. T. Smith (2012) critiques Euro-Western research approaches, which she argues have historically served to essentialize communities and further colonization, a system she terms “colonizing knowledges.” She advocates for a fundamental reorientation of research that centers on Indigenous epistemologies, empowers Indigenous perspectives, and challenges the legacies of colonialism. Spanning two decades, Deborah McGregor’s research plays a vital role in the literature on cross-cultural collaboration in Indigenous settings. Her work provides a critical perspective on the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental governance, legal frameworks, and policymaking, advocating for respect, recognition, and the empowerment of Indigenous communities and their knowledge systems. In D. McGregor (2014a), the author reflects on the multiple reasons Indigenous peoples choose to collaborate on environmental governance initiatives in Canada, the most compelling of which is their desire to re-establish and maintain their responsibilities, relationships, and connections to the earth or as she puts it “to survive as people” (page 346). The global environmental crisis and their powerful ethic of responsibility to “all of creation” is also a central motivation (page 346). Kyle Whyte, a prominent Indigenous scholar from the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, has made significant contributions to the literature on environmental justice, climate change policy, 10 and Indigenous rights as they intersect with cross-cultural collaboration. In K. P. Whyte (2013), he explores the concept of traditional ecological knowledge and its role in facilitating or discouraging cross-cultural and cross-situational collaboration among actors working for indigenous and non-indigenous institutions of environmental governance. He argues that the concept of traditional ecological knowledge should be understood as a collaborative concept, serving to invite diverse populations to continually learn from one another about how each approaches the very question of “knowledge” and how these different approaches can be blended to better steward the natural world and adapt to climate change In Reo et al. (2017), Whyte and co-authors, identify six characteristics that influence Indigenous nations’ willingness to sustain engagement in multi-actor collaborations: respect for Indigenous knowledges, control of knowledge mobilization, intergenerational involvement, self-determination, continuous cross-cultural education, and early involvement. 1.2.1.3 Diverging Perspectives on Water The literature reflects marked differences between conventional Western and Indigenous ontologies of water, leading to distinct approaches in water stewardship (Linton & Pahl‐Wostl, 2023; Parsons & Fisher, 2020; Nicole J Wilson & Inkster, 2018). Indigenous cultures often see water as a sacred entity with inherent rights, deserving respect and protection (Castleden et al., 2017; Laborde & Jackson, 2022; Linton & Pahl‐Wostl, 2023; D. McGregor, 2014b). The Indigenous perspective advocates for stewardship involving community-based decision-making that considers the spiritual, cultural, and ecological values of water and the impacts of water stewardship on all elements of the ecosystem in a holistic matter, emphasizing the need for balance and the cyclical nature of natural systems (Kimmerer, 2013; Wildcat, 2010). It also 11 embodies a long-term view focused on sustainability and the well-being of future generations (Strang, 2020). For many Indigenous communities, water has significant cultural and spiritual dimensions with water deeply intertwined with cultural practices and ceremonies (Altman, 2002; Groenfeldt, 2006; Strang, 2020). In contrast, Western societies view water as a resource to be used, managed, and often commodified. Influenced by Western legal frameworks, water is often approached through a lens of ownership and rights allocation, with practices frequently driven by technological, economic, and efficiency considerations (Getches, 2015).2 Decision-making is centralized and less community-oriented, often prioritizing human needs and economic growth over ecological balance (Glennon, 2009). Although sustainability is increasingly a concern in Western societies, historically, the focus has often been on immediate benefits and short-term gains. This can lead to overexploitation and neglect of the long-term health of water ecosystems (Postel & Richter, 2012). Furthermore, in these contexts, water stewardship tends to be more secular, focusing on physical and material aspects of water management in contrast to the cultural and spiritual dimensions of water (Strang, 2020). Indigenous communities in Canada have been disproportionately affected by water degradation (Castleden et al., 2017; D. McGregor, Sritharan, et al., 2023) and faced historical inequities that impact their ability to engage in water stewardship (Whyte, 2017). Indigenous researchers have thus been calling for changes in water governance frameworks that embrace multiple water worlds, recognize Indigenous systems as legitimate and historically established, 2 Throughout this dissertation, terms like the “the West” and “Western societies” are used to refer to North America and Europe to highlight the particular political, economic, and cultural characteristics commonly associated with these regions while also acknowledging that these concepts can have a broader geographical and cultural scope. 12 and draw on diverse ontological perspectives (Yates et al., 2017). Nicole J. Wilson (2014) examines the Koyukon Athabascan people’s “hydrosocial” relations to water, underscoring the need to understand Indigenous water governance beyond the scope of current Alaskan water law and policy. For her part, D. McGregor (2021a) discusses the Anishinabek perspective, which views water as a living, spiritual entity deserving respect and coexistence. Furthermore, she challenges the conventional ‘technofix’ approach to the global water crisis and critiques the Western conceptualization of water as “binary, materialistic water-as-resource/commodity/property” for contributing to the crisis and water injustices (D. McGregor, Sritharan, et al., 2023). Wilson et al. agree, arguing that settler colonial politics should be understood as a root cause of water insecurity and highlighting the efforts of Indigenous communities to assert their rights and governance systems (N. J. Wilson et al., 2019; Nicole J Wilson et al., 2021). Many argue that a deeper understanding of Indigenous value systems and spiritual connection with water would lead to more sustainable development (Gratani et al., 2016; Groenfeldt, 2006; D. McGregor et al., 2020; Reyes-García et al., 2022). 1.2.1.4 Ethical Space and Two-Eyed Seeing The concept of ‘ethical space’ has been proposed as an approach to increase the involvement and empowerment of Indigenous people and intercultural collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, offering a transformative approach for enhancing conservation and social-ecological restoration (Abu et al., 2019; Bridge, 2023b; Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2018; Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022; C. D. Smith, 2020; Y2Y, 2021). This concept is seen to be pivotal in fostering meaningful cross-cultural collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, as highlighted in the works of Bridge (2023), 13 Brunger et al. (2014), and Bryce (2014). Ethical space, conceptualized as both a tangible and abstract sphere, serves as a dynamic arena where ethical principles, values, and norms are actively negotiated and redefined, shaped by the complex interplay of cultural, political, and economic factors (De Keere, 2020). Sorrells’ (2020) model of ‘intercultural praxis,’ rooted in a critical social justice approach to intercultural communication, resonates with this concept, offering a lens to understand and navigate the intricacies of ethical space. According to Sorrells, intercultural praxis is a process of critical reflective thinking and action that enables individuals to navigate complex intercultural spaces at interpersonal, communal, and global levels. The practice provides a way of being, thinking, analyzing, reflecting, and acting in the world that recognizes and embraces the intersection of cultural differences while acknowledging their entanglement with power relations. Sorrells’ circular or spiral model consists of six interconnected ports of entry, inquiry, framing, positioning, dialogue, reflection and action, underpins the ethical praxis in ethnobiology, as noted by Bannister (2018), emphasizing how cultural differences entwine with power dynamics in intercultural interactions. In an Indigenous-non-Indigenous context, ‘ethical space’ came into use following Willie Ermine’s (2007) publication “The Ethical Space of Engagement.” In his article, Ermine, a Sturgeon Lake First Nation professor, describes ethical space as being “formed when two societies, with disparate worldviews, are poised to engage each other.”(Ermine, 2007, p. 193). Ermine contends that understanding the nature of the space between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities sets the stage for engagement. He notes that within the encounter, there exist deeper thoughts, interests and assumptions that are concealed and will inevitably shape and influence the nature of the engagement and relationships that develop. He further argues that 14 these underlying hidden forces and influential underflows must be acknowledged and brought to bear in the complex confrontation of cross-cultural differences in knowledge and legal systems. This concept is further expanded by Nelson & Wilson (2018), who describe ethical space as a realm where diverse worldviews meet as equals, challenging and deconstructing the colonial hierarchies ingrained in knowledge systems and worldviews. This space embodies principles of mutual respect and kindness, as emphasized by the Indigenous Council of Experts (2018) and necessitates a comprehensive acknowledgment and redressal of the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization. This involves a conscious effort to rebalance power dynamics and recognize the unique rights and perspectives of Indigenous peoples, including addressing the impacts of colonial policies and practices, as argued by Latulippe & Klenk (2020) and Martin et al. (2017). Importantly, acknowledging and addressing the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization and asymmetrical power imbalances between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and institutions are central to the application of ethical space (Latulippe & Klenk, 2020; D. E. Martin et al., 2017). Ethical space is a relatively recent approach to Indigenous-non-Indigenous engagement, with limited research on how ethical space is implemented in practice (Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). A global review of Indigenous-conservation partnerships, however, points to the centrality of introspection and reflection and dialogic processes and principles, which can dismantle colonial hierarchies and imbalances of power and facilitate Indigenous-led approaches (Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). In her analysis of ethical space competencies in Canada, Nadeau (2022) identifies three key themes from practitioners: pre-engagement, relational accountability, and reflexivity. Dr. Reg Crowshoe, a Piikani Blackfoot Elder, whose work with the Alberta Energy Regulator is an early advocate of ethical space practice, cautions against attempting to 15 integrate Indigenous processes and knowledge with mainstream institutions, which he observes has led to cultural confusion. Rather, he asserts that ethical space is about the co-creation of something new as a result of linking the worldviews of Indigenous and Western cultures (Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017). As a relatively new concept the practical application of ethical space in cross-cultural contexts, particularly in the environmental sphere, remains an evolving area with much to be explored and understood (Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). A concept closely related to ethical space is ‘two-eyed seeing,’ which, though distinct, converges in its aim to engage diverse knowledge systems and different ways of knowing. Both concepts recognize the unique histories, traditions, and limitations inherent to each knowledge system, advocating for a synergistic dialogue between them, and posit that integrating these diverse epistemologies enriches our overall understanding and problem-solving capacity (Bridge, 2023a, 2023b; Littlechild & Sutherland, 2021). First articulated by Mi’kmaw Elder Albert Marshall, two-eyed seeing (or Etuaptmumk) is described as “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all” (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 335). The concept is metaphorically likened to trees interconnected by their roots, symbolizing unity and connection despite diverse backgrounds, as explained by Bartlett et al. (2012). It seeks to avoid knowledge domination and assimilation by recognizing the best from both worlds (Hatcher et al., 2009) and is considered an alternative to the conventional notion of ‘integrating’ Western scientific and Indigenous knowledge (N. J. Wilson et al., 2019). Originally applied in the fields of education and health, two-eyed seeing has garnered increasing interest across various disciplines, including environmental studies (Reid et al., 2021). 16 In academia, it has emerged as a research approach that bridges Western and Indigenous ways of knowing, combining the strengths of both to enhance understanding and problem-solving. However, the practical application of two-eyed seeing in research remains somewhat ambiguous. Wright et al. (2019), in their analysis of 37 articles, noted varying interpretations of two-eyed seeing as an ethical protocol, a guiding principle, or a framework. Despite these differences, Wright and colleagues identified six common characteristics in its application: authentic relationships, reciprocal research, relational accountability, Indigenous involvement, Indigenous methodology, and deference to Indigenous leadership by Western researchers. These characteristics, while not uniformly applied, collectively define the current application of two-eyed seeing in research. Rather than being a static set of rules, however, two-eyed seeing is evolving as a dynamic framework, adaptable and open to continuous refinement. 1.2.2 Research Area The Okanagan Valley is located in the southern interior of British Columbia, the most westerly province of Canada (see Figure 1), about 400 kilometers from the Pacific coast. The valley extends from Vernon in the north Okanagan in Canada to Brewster, Washington, in the United States. An international Canada-US watershed, the Okanagan basin on the Canadian side stretches approximately 200 km in length and covers an area of about 8,000 km2. The Okanagan region stands out as a significant center of biodiversity on both national and global scales, characterized by its exceptional species diversity, the uniqueness of its rare species, and the largest concentration of endangered species in the province (Bezener et al., 2004; Schwann, 2018; J. Wagner, 2008). 17 While the region is home to a series of lakes along the valley, including the iconic Okanagan Lake, which spans 120 km north-south, the Okanagan is the most water-scarce region in Canada. Its per capita water availability is the lowest in the country, and its consumption is twice the national average (OBWB, 2011, n.d.-d). Given historical usage and unabated population growth and development, water is a persistent concern. Risks of water shortages for human use and environmental needs are increasing according to the Okanagan Basin Water Board’s Phase 2019 Water Supply and Demand Project reports (OBWB, n.d.-b) 1.2.2.1 The Syilx Okanagan Peoples and European Settlement in the Okanagan The Syilx (Okanagan) Nation is an Indigenous people who have lived from time immemorial in the Okanagan and Columbia River basins in both BC, Canada, and Washington State, U.S. Historically, their territory spanned about 69,000 km2, extending across modern-day regions in both countries (see Figure 1 insert) (Good Water, 2018; Westbank First Nation, n/d). The Syilx peoples, a trans-boundary tribe separated at the 49th parallel by the border between Canada and the US, have resided in the Okanagan region for millennia. The Syilx peoples have an intrinsic relationship with siwɬkw (water). They equate water with life and consider water their sacred relation, which they have an obligation to protect and keep healthy to ensure resiliency and relationship to the tmixw (land) (ONA, Figure 1.1 Okanagan Water Basin in Canada (OBWB, n.d.-a) 18 2021). The Syilx Water Strategy (2021) recognizes the need to promote unity and collaboration with non-Indigenous neighbors and partners in Syilx Okanagan Territory to uphold their inherent responsibilities to siwɬkw (water). The Okanagan region in Canada has undergone significant transformations due to European settlement and shifting agricultural practices since the late 1800s. Initially shaped by ranching, agriculture, logging, and mining, the landscape saw the rise of tobacco, cash crops, and fruit orchards in the early 1900s (Schwann, 2018; J. Wagner, 2008). The introduction of irrigation by 1920 led to intensive cultivation and exportation, with a profound impact on the indigenous Syilx Okanagan People and the Okanagan landscape (J. R. Wagner & White, 2009). Large-scale agricultural projects in the early 1900s, including the reformation of waterways and the damming of the Okanagan River, severely impacted local ecosystems, leading to a drastic reduction in biodiversity and wetland areas. By 2005, up to ninety percent of the valley’s natural areas were affected, and eighty-four percent of wetlands were removed, endangering native species and the Syilx Okanagan Peoples who depend on the land for sustenance and livelihood (OBWB, 2019). This history of exploitation and environmental degradation is a significant aspect of the Okanagan’s cultural landscape. 1.3 Methodology and Methods 1.3.1 Positionality I write from a specific place. I am a non-Indigenous scholar born to European immigrant parents on the traditional lands of the Syilx peoples. My upbringing and life have been shaped by the privileges afforded to me through colonial structures, which have favored my family since settling in the Okanagan. This inheritance of privilege profoundly influenced my perspectives 19 and opportunities, a realization that has become increasingly clear to me over time and, in particular, in carrying out this research. Since resettling in the Okanagan in 2016 and restarting my academic life after a three-decade career in international development living outside of Canada, I embarked on what I thought would be a study of climate change communication. However, this path unexpectedly led me to a deeper exploration of my own heritage, the complex legacy of colonialism in Canada, and my position within this history. This journey of discovery has been both enlightening and challenging, forcing me to confront uncomfortable truths about my involvement in systems of oppression and privilege, and recognize the ongoing impacts of colonialism on Indigenous communities. But I have come to realize my responsibility in the decolonization process and have become committed to challenging the dominant paradigms of knowledge that have historically marginalized Indigenous voices and perspectives. My academic background in natural resources and management is rooted in Western ideologies, which I acknowledge has shaped my approach, values, and belief systems. As an older student, it has been an even greater challenge to question these ingrained systems and move beyond these perspectives. In this academic journey, I have been fortunate to receive guidance from a Syilx scholar and friend, Sarah Alexis, whose patience and wisdom have been invaluable. Her insights have not only enriched my understanding but have also been a cornerstone in my trajectory toward a more inclusive and respectful approach to knowledge. Exposing myself to a diverse range of cultures and thought systems in my international career has also helped broaden my worldview and informed my approach to research and personal growth. This dissertation would not have been possible without the Waterways Past, Present and Future Project, co-led by co-Investigator’s Dr. Aleksandra Dulic and Syilx Scholar Dr. Jeannette 20 Armstrong, along with faculty colleagues Dr. John Wagner, Dr. Marlowe Sam, Dr. Lael Parrott, and Dr. Miles Thorogood. Dr. Armstrong’s commitment to the project allowed me and other team members to engage with the En’owkin Center and the Syilx community, which in turn gave us privileged insights into the cultural and ecological significance of water within the Syilx territory, and facilitated the pivotal collaboration with Sarah Alexis, Dr. Armstrong’s student. Engaging within the Waterways project compelled me to re-evaluate my research methodologies, incorporating a more holistic and inclusive approach that respects and integrates Indigenous knowledge systems. In writing this dissertation, my intent is to contribute thoughtfully and respectfully to the broader discourse on reconciliation, ensuring that my work is sensitive to the histories and experiences of those most affected by colonial legacies. 1.3.2 Methodology Each of the four manuscripts comprising this dissertation includes a methods section that corresponds with the respective research objectives, design, and scope of each paper. Here, I describe the interconnected and mutually enforcing methodological elements underpinning all papers. My research was framed, developed and carried out within the “Waterways Past, Present and Future” project, a collaborative initiative between the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO), Syilx Knowledge Keepers, and community partners in the Okanagan. Waterways, a four-year creative inquiry, and exhibition, is aimed at fostering sustainable water practices by exploring human-water relationships in the Okanagan, with an emphasis on the less understood and appreciated Indigenous knowledge systems. 21 1.3.2.1 Transdisciplinary Waterways’ transdisciplinary, with its experiential learning approach and a multidisciplinary team of researchers and Indigenous and non-Indigenous community partners, informed my research by helping me develop a more holistic understanding of water stewardship. Furthermore, the emphasis on participatory, experiential design and co-design, involving community members and Knowledge Keepers, allowed me to delve more deeply into cross-cultural collaboration and its challenges. Research methods were adapted accordingly, influencing who and how to conduct interviews for my research. In addition, operating within Waterways’ transdisciplinary environment influenced my understanding of complexity and systems thinking, which, in turn, led to the application of theoretical frameworks that incorporated elements of social-ecological systems, adaptive co-management, and collaborative research, as reflected in the research papers. 1.3.2.2 Indigenous Research Methodology Before beginning my research, I immersed myself in the literature on Indigenous research methodologies to inform and guide my approach. Examining how an Indigenous paradigmatic perspective would help frame my research, as recommended by Kovach (2009, 2010) and Weber-Pillwax (1999), meant considering how my engagements and inquiries were rooted in Syilx belief systems, encompassing their distinctive worldviews, philosophies, axiologies, and cultural values. This required developing an understanding of the unique perspectives that shape Syilx epistemologies and methodologies. Furthermore, I learned about the centrality role of Indigenous knowledge systems, which in this case are specific to Syilx cultural, local, and 22 societal contexts and are typically oral, experiential, and holistic, often conveyed through storytelling. This aspect emphasizes the importance of respecting and integrating these diverse knowledge systems into my research process (Hart, 2010; Maurial, 1999; Steinhauer, 2002). Reflecting on the motives and intentions of my research was another key element, to ensure alignment with the needs and interests of Indigenous communities (Kovach, 2009; Weber-Pillwax, 1999). Lastly, consideration of my position as a researcher was fundamental. I worked with my Indigenous co-researchers to understand the cultural protocols, values, and beliefs of the Syilx people, which is a lifelong learning process. The principles of ‘respect, reciprocity, and relationality’ were overarching principles that guided the nature and direction of my research and engagement with the Syilx community (Kovach, 2009; Steinhauer, 2002). Given that this dissertation addresses cross-cultural collaboration in a First Nation Indigenous setting, applying a decolonizing methodological lens was essential (Chilisa, 2017, 2019; Kovach, 2009; L. T. Smith, 2012). As a white scholar, this process involved challenging traditional Western approaches I had learned over the decades and critically analyzing and questioning the underlying assumptions, motivations, and values that informed conventional research practices (Kovach, 2009; L. T. Smith, 2012). The decolonizing lens, as guided by Kovach (2009, 2010) and Thambinathan and Kinsella (2021) comprised four elements. First, it involved applying creative reflexivity by questioning epistemological assumptions, my positionality as a researcher, and the power dynamics, including any hierarchical barriers between myself and the research participants. Second, it entailed consistently applying reciprocity and respect for Syilx self-determination, which implied requesting consent at different stages of the research and listening attentively and affectively to research participants. Third, it required seeking to understand Syilx ‘ways of knowing’ by endeavoring to unlearn and 23 re-imagine how knowledge is constructed, produced, and valued. Fourth, it entailed embracing a transformative praxis through the development of research objectives and creating space for discussing decolonizing practices throughout the inquiry. Critical self-reflection is a central part of the decolonizing mindset, as asserted by Kovach (2009). She cites Indigenous scholar Cam Willett who suggests, “I deconstruct everything, my mind is less, I wouldn’t say it is decolonized, but it is certainly less colonialized than it was.” This statement resonates with my research journey as a white non-Indigenous scholar who has been shaped by and has been a part of a colonial construct for over five decades. Kovach further states that the purpose of decolonization is to “create space in everyday life, research, academia, and society for an Indigenous perspective without it being neglected, shunted aside, mocked, or dismissed” (2009, p. 85) which is ultimately the aim of my own inquiry. 1.3.2.3 Constructivist Principles My methodological approach is rooted in constructivist theory and practice, characterized by knowledge and understanding actively constructed through the interaction of the researcher’s and participants’ experiences and perspectives (Charmaz, 2017a). The research was sensitive to the specific place of the Okanagan and context of the study (the Syilx peoples) with a focused exploration of cultural values, power structures, and historical legacies of place and people of the Okanagan, which is characteristic of constructivist theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Green et al., 2007). The approach acknowledges the importance of these elements and integrates them into the fabric of the research methodology. The flexibility of this methodology allowed for necessary 24 adjustments during the research process, embodying the iterative and reflective nature that is central to constructivist research (Charmaz, 2006). A constructivist approach was further demonstrated through the use of thematic analysis, including the use of the phased method outlined by Braun & Clarke (2012), which underlines a commitment to a reflective and iterative process that appreciates the complexity and depth of qualitative data used in the research. Furthermore, research papers highlight both Indigenous and Western knowledges and ‘ways of knowing’ simultaneously, thereby acknowledging and respecting multiple realities and perspectives. Such an approach is indicative of a constructivist stance, as it emphasizes the coexistence and mutual respect of diverse knowledge systems (Charmaz, 2017b; Green et al., 2007). Finally, the integration of Indigenous methodological principles – such as respect, reciprocity, relationality, and adherence to cultural protocols – is both a procedural aspect of the research as well as fundamental to its constructivist nature, thereby aligning the research methodology closely with both constructivist and Indigenous research paradigms. 1.4 Methods All papers included in this dissertation applied qualitative methods, which are consistent with the Indigenous methodological relational principle between the research and the researcher, referred to as “self-in-relation” by Graveline (2000) and “researcher in relation” by Kovach (2009). As described by Starman, qualitative research “is characterized by an interpretative paradigm, which emphasizes subjective experiences and the meanings they have for an individual. Therefore, the subjective views of a researcher on a particular situation play a vital part in the study results” (Starman, 2013, p. 30). Qualitative research also emphasizes an 25 individual’s perspective on the investigative situation, process, relation, etc. (Starman, 2013), which is congruent with Indigenous relational principles. The papers draw heavily on semi-structured interviews, which blend the directed focus of structured ethnographic inquiry with the adaptability of open-ended conversations (Kallio et al., 2016). This approach was particularly relevant in the context of my research as a white non-Indigenous scholar working within an Indigenous First Nation community. It allowed for respectful, open-ended dialogues, giving participants the freedom to share their stories and experiences without feeling pressured or restricted. This method also aligns well with Indigenous epistemologies, as noted by (Kovach, 2009) by fostering an environment of mutual respect, relationality, and co-construction of knowledge. The method proved invaluable in exploring sensitive and complex topics such as truth and reconciliation, racism, colonial oppression, and trust, underscoring its appropriateness and responsiveness in culturally sensitive research settings and harmony with Indigenous methodologies (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Green et al., 2007). The dissertation now moves into the main body encompassing the four manuscripts. 26 Chapter 2: Bringing the Salmon Home: A study of cross-cultural collaboration in the Syilx Okanagan Territory of British Columbia (Manuscript 1) Abstract This study explores the unique tripartite collaboration involving the Syilx Okanagan Nation Alliance and the provincial and federal governments, which has been pivotal in restoring Okanagan sockeye salmon in British Columbia, Canada. Using qualitative research methods, we analyze the multidimensional challenges the tripartite partnership has faced over its 25-year history, emphasizing the role of traditional ecological knowledge, adaptive co-management, and social learning. We find that a conducive authorizing environment, shared goals, and an unexpected source of financing allowed the Okanagan Sockeye Program to launch. Once underway, the partnership relied on adaptive co-management strategies to navigate inherent complexities and uncertainties. Over time, the attainment of shared objectives and capacity bridging among the partners fostered trust and confidence, enhancing the sustainability of the alliance. Acknowledging the Okanagan Nation Alliance as a legitimate government and maintaining equal decision-making powers were also critical factors; however, Syilx traditional ecological knowledge, as a holistic knowledge-practice-belief system, has been the sustained driving force behind the partnership. Over the multi-decade trajectory, the alliance grappled with institutional complexities surrounding jurisdictional conflicts, power imbalances, and systemic inequities. At a time when Indigenous co-management in Canada is at a crossroads, and demands for Indigenous environmental governance are only increasing, this study offers some insights. Our research invites further exploration into the successes and failures of Indigenous 27 environmental governance and co-management schemes, with a view to informing future policy and programming. 2.1 Introduction From time immemorial, the Syilx (Okanagan) people, a transborder First Nation in the southern interior of the province of British Columbia in Canada, and Washington State in the US, have depended on fisheries for sustenance, cultural values, and spiritual practices. Overexploitation and human actions since the 19th century, however, particularly the construction of hydroelectric dams and the canalization of the Okanagan River for agricultural development and flood control, destroyed fish and their habitats (ONA, n.d.-a; Schwann, 2018; J. Wagner, 2008). Sockeye salmon, sc’win, or Oncorhynchus nerka, for example, once abundant in the Okanagan, dwindled to fewer than 10,000 adults returning annually on average in the 1990s. This decline precipitated the virtual elimination of First Nations and other commercial fisheries in the Canadian portions of the Columbia River basin (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019; Kim Dennis Hyatt & Rankin, 1999; ONA, n.d.-a) and posed a significant threat to Syilx well-being and way of life (Blanchet et al., 2022). In the late 1990s, the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA)—representing seven Syilx bands as the First Nations government on the Canadian portion of the territory—joined forces with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the provincial Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operation and Rural Development (FLNRORD)3 in an alliance to restore Okanagan sockeye. Guided by Syilx elders and drawing on Syilx traditional ecological 3 In 2022, FLNRORD was divided into two new ministries: the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and the Ministry of Forests. 28 knowledge (TEK) and Western science,4 their multi-decade collaboration has yielded remarkable results. Between 2008 and 2016, Okanagan sockeye salmon returns averaged a record 200,000 adults (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019), soaring to an unprecedented 670,000 adults in 2022 (Strachan, 2022). This success is noteworthy considering that comparable initiatives in the larger Columbia River basin have failed (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019; Lackey, 1999). Moreover, despite increased interest in co-management for marine, fish, and wildlife management regimes, co-management results between Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments and organizations in Canada remain elusive, particularly outside of land claim agreements (Nadasdy, 2003b; Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023). This paper explores the cross-cultural collaboration that led to the Okanagan Sockeye Program’s remarkable success. The research aims to identify the enabling factors that facilitated the Program’s inception and sustained implementation over two decades. Particular emphasis is placed on the characteristics of co-management and adaptive co-management that emerged during the Program’s execution, as well as on the role of Syilx TEK. This study responds directly to a request by Syilx Okanagan Knowledge Keepers for insights from the Sockeye Program into effective cross-cultural partnerships. Based on research conducted within the framework of the Okanagan Waterways project led by the University of British Columbia in collaboration with the Syilx community, this paper opens with background information on co-management and TEK, 4 In this dissertation, the term “Western” science is used to denote a general categorization that broadly refers to scientific traditions and methodologies that have historically originated or been developed in Europe and North America. It is important to acknowledge that this terminology, while convenient for distinguishing between different epistemological traditions, does not capture the full diversity and spectrum of views within the scientific community. This generalization is consistent with the usage found in the literature on the subject but is not intended to oversimplify or overlook the rich variety of perspectives and approaches that exist within what is referred to here as “Western” science. 29 followed by a description of the study area. Subsequent sections outline the research methods, findings, discussion, and conclusions.5 2.2 Conceptual Background 2.2.1 Co-management The theoretical underpinnings of co-management span several disciplines, including institutional design and collective action (E. Ostrom, 1990), social-ecological systems and complexity theory (Berkes et al., 1998), collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008); and participatory development (Chambers, 1994). In natural resource management, the term ‘co-management’ was initially introduced by treaty tribes in Western Washington State in the late 1970s to define the kind of relationship they hoped to establish with the state following the landmark 1974 US v. Washington case (commonly referred to as ‘the Boldt decision’) (Pinkerton, 2003). Co-management was initially defined as “the sharing of power and responsibility between government and local resource users” (Berkes et al., 1991, p. 12), with the transfer of government power taking different forms, e.g., deconcentration, delegation, devolution, and privatization (Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997). However, the concept was later 5 Throughout the paper, the term Okanagan refers to the name of the Syilx Okanagan people and to the geographic location (valley, lake, river) of the Syilx Nation’s traditional lands. According to the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada website, “Indigenous peoples” is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. “Aboriginal peoples” is also used, with the Canadian Constitution recognizing three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (more commonly referred to as First Nations), Inuit and Métis (Government of Canada 2023). These terms are capitalized following guidelines for writing about Indigenous Peoples (Younging, 2018). Aboriginal and Indigenous are used interchangeably in this document. I use the word “Indigenous” acknowledging that it does not represent a monolithic group with uniform values, beliefs, or ways of thinking. Instead, it encompasses a vast plurality of experiences, knowledge systems, and worldviews. This acknowledgment aligns with the literature’s nuanced understanding of the term and respects the individuality and sovereignty of each Indigenous community and person discussed in this work. 30 broadened to regard the state as only one of the possible actors in a potential management arrangement (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000; Hasselman, 2017). A related term, adaptive co-management, considers the uncertainty, unpredictability, and complexity inherent in social-ecological systems (Armitage et al., 2007; C. Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2004). Informed by a constructivist philosophy (Hasselman, 2017), features of adaptive co-management include institutional structures designed for shared learning across varying spatial and temporal scales (Armitage et al., 2009; Plummer, 2013) and flexible, community-based resource management systems (C. Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2004). As Berkes (2007) contends, co-management and the expanded practice of adaptive co-management have several essential characteristics or ‘faces,’ one of which is social learning (Berkes, 2009a). Social learning is a process of iterative reflection that occurs when experiences, ideas, and environments are shared, leading to new learning (Keen et al., 2012). It is both an outcome and a requirement of partners cooperating (Berkes, 2009a). As an outcome, social learning demonstrates how co-management partners learn to be adaptive as a result of the uncertainty of social-ecological systems, or they ‘learn to learn’ (Armitage et al., 2011). 2.2.2 Co-management in an Indigenous Context In Canada, co-management emerged as a central theme in Indigenous land claims negotiations, to institute new decision-making arrangements that empower Indigenous peoples with greater control over their land and natural resources (Spaeder & Feit, 2005; Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023; White, 2020) and align with Indigenous values and worldviews (Berkes et al., 1991; Houde, 2007; D. Natcher, Davis, S., & Hickey, C. , 2005; Notzke, 1995; Silvern, 1999). The 1973 Calder Supreme Court ruling was pivotal in recognizing aboriginal rights, leading` to 31 the development of Canada’s land claim settlement policy (Scholtz, 2013). A cornerstone of this policy was co-management, designed to afford Indigenous people some level of control over their ancestral lands and provide a limited form of self-determination (Rodon, 2021). Section 35 of Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act further accelerated co-management practices by affirming existing aboriginal and treaty rights (Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023). One early manifestation of this policy shift was the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA), which created co-management boards overseeing fisheries, wildlife, and environmental impacts in Canada’s Arctic (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 1984; Osherenko & Canadian Arctic Resources, 1988). These boards exemplify power-sharing in decision-making. Various other agreements across Canada have since reinforced co-management paradigms, particularly in the realms of fish and wildlife conservation (Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023), with interest in these co-management arrangements continuing to grow in Canada (Armitage et al., 2007; Rodon, 2021; White, 2020). The academic discourse on Indigenous co-management is far from monolithic. While some scholars argue that co-management facilitates Indigenous empowerment (D. C. Natcher et al., 2005; White, 2020), others see it as a form of co-option and assimilation into Western systems of management (Nadasdy, 2003a; M. G. Stevenson, 2006), thereby further marginalizing Indigenous communities, strengthening the state’s control over resources and escalating conflict (Castro & Nielsen, 2001; Goetze, 2005; Rodon, 1998, 2021; Spaeder & Feit, 2005). Still, co-management experiences in Canada and Australia are often held up as models for replication (Craig, 2002). Rodon (2021) concludes that co-management is a multi-faceted social phenomenon encompassing a spectrum of possibilities. Based on the Canadian literature, he presents four interpretive models to analyze co-management: cooption, transaction, self-determination, and mistrust. Swerdfager and Armitage (2023) argue that co-management 32 currently stands at a crossroads, with challenges such as outdated and incomplete Canadian legal and policy framework, insufficient systems for knowledge co-creation, and resource constraints casting shadows over its efficacy in Indigenous settings. 2.2.3 Co-management and TEK In the realm of co-management, knowledge co-production often acts as a catalyst for collaboration, even when decision-making powers are limited (Armitage et al., 2011; N. Johnson et al., 2020; Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023). In Indigenous contexts, however, the recognition and valuation of TEK in knowledge co-production is a significant barrier (Berkes et al., 1991; D. McGregor, 2004, 2014a, 2021b; Nadasdy, 2005; Plummer et al., 2012; B. K. Williams, 2011). Originating from international development and adaptive management discourses (K. P. Whyte, 2013), TEK and related terms (such as Indigenous knowledge or native science), is a recurrent theme in the natural resources, environmental science, and policy literature (Berkes, 2018; Houde, 2007; L. McGregor, 2009). TEK is referenced in critical international environmental agreements, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the 1992 UN Framework on Climate Change, and the 2012 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Tengö et al., 2014; Tengö et al., 2017). It is also acknowledged in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) passed in 2007 (Berkes, 2018; Tengö et al., 2017; K. Whyte, 2016). This broad acknowledgment notwithstanding, concrete measures for TEK’s genuine inclusion remain elusive (McElwee et al., 2020; Reyes-García et al., 2022; Tengö et al., 2017). In Canada, little evidence exists of effective models for the ethical inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in environmental governance even after decades of attempts, according to 33 D. McGregor (2021b). Epistemological differences, colonial legacies, institutional biases, and conflicts with economic interests complicate efforts (Agrawal, 1995; Berkes, 2018; Houde, 2007; Nadasdy, 1999; N. J. Turner et al., 2000; K. P. Whyte, 2013). Houde (2007) identifies six ‘faces’ of TEK relevant to natural resource co-management in Canada, noting that the ‘faces’ related to environmental ethics, values, and worldviews may be the most difficult to accommodate in conventional Western systems. A common misconception is that TEK can be integrated with Western science as data points into existing bureaucracies, a notion that overlooks the inherent differences in cultural values and power dynamics between these knowledge systems (D. McGregor, 2021b; Nadasdy, 1999, 2005). TEK, however, is not something that can be picked up or extracted and used by scientists or practitioners (K. P. Whyte, 2013), as McGregor (2021b, p. 1) explains: “Indigenous knowledge is not just ‘knowledge’ (a noun) but a way of life, something that must be lived (a verb) in order to be understood. Indigenous knowledge is inseparable from the people who hold and live this knowledge.” The prevailing misconception and complexities associated with TEK and its relation to Western science have been observed in the context of co-management as it relates to fisheries and marine social-ecological systems (Armitage et al., 2009; Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997; Rodon, 1998; Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023). These issues are relevant to this sockeye salmon case study in the Okanagan. 34 2.2.4 Study Background 2.2.5 The Syilx Okanagan Nation – a Salmon People The Syilx (Okanagan) Nation is an Indigenous people who have lived from time immemorial in the Okanagan and Columbia River basins in both British Columbia, Canada, and Washington State, U.S. Historically, their territory spanned about 69,000 km2, extending across modern-day regions in both countries (see Figure 1) (Good Water, 2018; Westbank First Nation, n/d). Today, the Syilx peoples are represented by the ONA in British Columbia and the Colville Confederated Tribe Business Council in Washington State. Salmon are central to Syilx identity (J. Johnson, 2016). A saying in the community goes, “if the salmon are gone, there is no place for people,” emphasizing their significance. This importance is further elaborated in the Syilx Four Food Chiefs story, an oral tradition that describes the foundational role of salmon in the Syilx culture (ONA, n.d.-b). Salmon are a food source and a key element in the community’s cultural and spiritual practices, intergenerational bonds, and overall well-being (Blanchet et al., 2022; Good Water, 2018; Terbasket & Shields, 2019). Figure 2.1 Syilx Okanagan Territory. Source: Westbank First Nation n/d. 35 2.2.6 Okanagan Sockeye Salmon Restoration – spatial, temporal, and institutional complexity Sockeye salmon in the Okanagan River subbasin represent one of several salmon species that thrive in freshwater lakes and rivers along the North Pacific Ocean’s eastern and western coasts (Groot & Margolis, 1991). The Okanagan subbasin is the last international watershed in the Columbia River basin system that still supports anadromous salmon. The construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States in 1939 cut off other anadromous species, including Chinook, Steelhead, Coho, and others, from spawning areas in the Upper Columbia Basin (Ortolano & Cushing, 2002).The life cycle of sockeye salmon is marked by spatial, temporal, and institutional complexities (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). Sockeye salmon are anadromous fish that are reared in freshwater habitats but migrate to the ocean for most of their adult lives. They later return to their natal spawning grounds—a journey that spans over 1,000 kilometers through a diverse range of ecosystems at local to global scales (see Figure 2) (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). This migratory journey lasts anywhere from 3 to 5 years, involving river migration phases through Canadian and U.S. Figure 2.2 The Spatial Lifecycle of Anadromous Sockeye Salmon (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019) 36 territories (Figure 2B), oceanic residency (Figure 2A), and a final migration back to the Okanagan River (Figure 2C) (Burgner, 1991; K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). The challenges facing sockeye salmon are not just environmental but are shaped by a complex interplay of natural and human-induced factors. For example, climatic variations driven by atmospheric processes impact both freshwater and oceanic habitats (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). Human activities—ranging from land and coastal conversions to water regulation, transportation, and even cultural practices—further complicate the conservation landscape (Burgner, 1991; K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). Okanagan sockeye salmon is governed by a complex transnational framework involving 27 actors, policies and statutes in Canada and the U.S. In Canada, DFO is the main authority, guided by the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Wild Salmon Policy, and the 1982 Constitution (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). While water is an area of provincial jurisdiction in Canada, the federal government has the authority to regulate fisheries, shipping, and navigation in oceans under Canadian jurisdiction, as well as lakes, rivers, and streams within the provinces and territories (Becklumb, 2013). The 1976 Canada–British Columbia Okanagan Basin Implementation Agreement, which includes provisions to protect fisheries values, is thus also part of the regulatory structure for Okanagan sockeye (Kim D Hyatt et al., 2015). Transborder management involves three key Canada-U.S. treaties: the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, the 1964 Columbia River Treaty, and the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty. These are overseen by the International Joint Commission and the Pacific Salmon Commission. Additionally, several U.S. institutions, policies and statutes operate parallel, given that Okanagan sockeye traverses U.S. waters (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019; Song et al., 2017). 37 In British Columbia, the management of fish species like Okanagan Sockeye Salmon is a complex interplay between federal and provincial jurisdictions, as outlined by the 1982 Canadian Constitution (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). While the Constitution assigns the federal government (DFO) the responsibility for “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries,” focusing mainly on conservation and protection, it allows the provincial FLNRORD (now the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship) to manage other aspects like licensing and leases. In this framework, FLNRORD primarily oversees inland resident fish, whereas DFO takes the lead on anadromous fish like Okanagan Sockeye, especially when they enter marine waters. This jurisdictional delineation requires federal-provincial collaboration, especially in the case of inland waters where both types of fish may be found. Specific agreements like the 1976 Canada–British Columbia Okanagan Basin Implementation further reinforce this shared responsibility. 2.3 Methods Our research is presented as a singular retrospective case study as a strategy for inquiry (Yin, 2003), which was considered appropriate given the Sockeye Program’s two-decade horizon. This method allows for identifying variables contributing to the Program’s evolution (Starman, 2013). As an in-depth analysis of a single initiative, the case study can be used to generalize across a larger set of similar cross-cultural environmental efforts (Gerring, 2004). The study applied an Indigenous methodological lens (Kovach, 2010, 2021; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021), consistent with the Waterways Project under which the research was conducted. Inter alia, this implied practicing creative reflexivity by questioning epistemological assumptions and considering potential power dynamics during engagement with study participants and analysis of findings; applying reciprocity and respect for Syilx self-38 determination, including requesting consent at different stages of the research, and listening affectively and attentively to participants; and creating space for discussing decolonization practices and embracing a transformative praxis. Guidance to frame the study with Indigenous methodological elements came from Syilx senior scholars who led the Waterways Project and who ensured the research both responded to Syilx interests and encompassed Syilx TEK as a line of inquiry. Semi-structured in-depth expert interviews comprised the study’s main data source. The expert interview method was considered most appropriate given the Indigenous context (Libakova & Sertakova, 2015) and the very few individuals with historical knowledge of the OSP over its 20-year trajectory (Bogner & Menz, 2009; von Soest, 2022). The selection of interviewees was based on criterion sampling, the most important criterion being the longitudinal knowledge of OSP’s evolution and implementation. A total of eight in-depth expert interviews were conducted with current and former staff from the ONA Fisheries Department, DFO, and FLNRORD. A joint Syilx-non-Indigenous team conducted the interviews. Having a Syilx researcher contributed legitimacy to the inquiry, facilitated access to Syilx participants, and created trust between the research team and interviewees. Interviews were conducted from October 2019-2022, with interruptions in data gathering due to COVID-19. All interviews were video recorded, which facilitated data analysis. Interview questions were open-ended and organized into four parts: the story of the project; management arrangements; responsibility to restoration, resilience, and reciprocity with salmon; and pivotal success factors. Interview recordings were transcribed, and thematic analysis was conducted. As described by Braun & Clarke (2006), the thematic analysis method offers an accessible and 39 theoretically flexible approach to analyzing qualitative data compared to other methods. The analysis broadly followed Braun & Clarke’s (2006) phased method to generate, view, and refine codes and themes, which was carried out in a reflective and iterative process between phases (Nowell et al., 2017). Given the Syilx context and epistemological differences in Indigenous and non-Indigenous research, flexibility was a priority, as was meeting trustworthiness criteria. On the latter, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation were conducted throughout the data analysis process. We also checked for the credibility of findings and interpretations through participant review and Syilx validation. This paper represents a collaborative effort between a mixed non-Indigenous-Syilx team of scholars. As non-Indigenous members (MC and AD), we recognize that our positionality limits our full understanding of Indigenous experiences. Therefore, our Syilx team member (SA) plays an integral role in shaping the research design, providing crucial insights that we alone could not offer. As a team, we are committed to a decolonizing approach that includes ongoing learning and accountability through consultations with the Syilx community. We are dedicated to centering Indigenous voices, respecting cultural sensitivities, acknowledging the power dynamics in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations, and adhering to ethical standards that include informed consent. We acknowledge that this research takes place on the traditional lands of the Syilx Okanagan Territory and respect the Syilx peoples’ enduring relationship with this territory. The research follows ethics protocols established by the Waterways, Past, Present and Future research project in 2017 and approved by UBC’s Research Ethics Boards.6 6 UBC’s REBs meet all requisite criteria for an authorized research ethics board, pursuant to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2, 2014), the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (ICH-GCP) and the requirements of the US Department of Health and Human Services, as set out in the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45CFR Part 46, sub-part A. http://www.rise.ubc.ca/rise-modules 40 2.4 Findings Factors identified from the analysis as contributing to cross-cultural collaboration in the Program are summarized in Table 2.1. Here, we elaborate on the more salient features uncovered in the inquiry in two sections: the enablers of the collaboration and implementation of the Program. 2.4.1 The Enablers 2.4.1.1 An authorizing environment The Okanagan Sockeye Program was enabled by a series of constitutional, legal, and policy changes that began in the 1980s, affecting both Canada and the United States with regard to First Nations and Tribal rights, as well as environmental management. In the United States, the 1990s saw the inclusion of various salmon populations in the Columbia Basin under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. This motivated U.S. government agencies to explore innovative strategies to prevent further additions to the endangered species list. The Act’s mandate lent urgency to species restoration, compelling industries, and other stakeholders to comply with its legislative requirements. In Canada, the 2002 Species at Risk Act was coming into force around the same time. Though it may have had more of a conceptual impact than an operational one, it nonetheless conditioned governmental attitudes toward greater sensitivity in biodiversity preservation. Restoration initiatives such as the Okanagan Sockeye Program allowed DFO to fulfill some of the new policies despite its historically uneasy relationship with First Nations, particularly concerning the co-management of fisheries and salmon harvest allocation. The DFO was also navigating a series of court cases aimed at clarifying the constitutional rights of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples to hunting and fishing resources. The release of 41 the final Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996, a comprehensive report comprising 440 recommendations, added significant weight to the discourse on Aboriginal rights and environmental protection in Canada (Government of Canada, 1996) . This report coincided with legal landmarks such as Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act, which recognized Aboriginal rights to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, as well as case law like the Sparrow Decision that upheld these rights (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019; Rodon, 2021; Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023). While the Government of Canada had yet to adopt a coherent stance on matters akin to reconciliation at that time, judicial pressures were nonetheless moving the needle. The courts essentially urged that Indigenous peoples should not be coerced into solutions for resource management issues and that their constitutional entitlements deserved respect. These legal outcomes significantly influenced Indigenous rights and relationships during an uncertain period. 2.4.1.2 Leadership and institutional interdependence Syilx leadership served as the catalyst for the Sockeye Program. Key figures like the late Chief Albert Saddleman and Byron Louis had been vocal about the alarming decline in fish stocks since the 1960s, albeit with limited impact. In 1997, ONA leaders collaborated with the Colville Confederated Tribe Business Council in Washington State to convene a groundbreaking forum of salmon experts. The aim was to address the deteriorating state of salmon populations in the Okanagan River basin, discuss the feasibility of restoration, and explore the responsibilities of Canadian fisheries management agencies in upholding Syilx fishing rights as outlined in the 1982 Canadian Constitution. This gathering served as the launching pad for the Program. Syilx leaders passionately articulated the cultural importance of their ancestral fisheries, pledging a 42 multi-generational commitment to restoring depleted and extirpated anadromous salmon populations. Their efforts were particularly timely, as feasibility studies had projected a 15-year window to prevent the extirpation of Okanagan Sockeye. As one DFO interviewee observed, “Absent their [Syilx] efforts to bring federal and provincial agencies to the table, the state of salmon in the Okanagan River basin would differ little today from that observed during the 1990s when sockeye salmon extirpation seemed imminent.” In the aftermath of the 1997 workshop, ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD agreed to join forces. Recognizing their institutional interdependence, they jointly pooled expertise and resources. This tripartite coalition eventually formalized into the Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group (COBTWG), which would oversee the planning, execution, and evaluation of the restoration activities. Within this structure, ONA brought implementation capacity backed by inherent rights, while DFO and FLNRORD offered a formal institutional framework underpinned by their constitutional and statutory authority over aquatic habitats and fish. It would take another five years to secure a Memorandum of Understanding. Meanwhile, individuals within the partnership accessed funding and began working together, which fostered mutual trust, respect, and confidence and paved the way for impactful projects, according to interviewees. Recognition of transborder issues led to the formation of a Bilateral Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group of interested parties in the US and Canada, but the group meets irregularly and is limited to information exchange. 43 Table 2.1 Analysis of cross-cultural collaboration in the Okanagan Sockeye Salmon Program. Success Factors from Co-management Literature Success Factors Observed in the Program Challenges to the Program A systems perspective: problem conceptualized as a complex adaptive system (Fabricius & Currie, 2015) At the outset, salmon restoration was recognized for its spatial, temporal, institutional and cultural complexity. The program’s structures, processes and tools were designed to be adaptive. Syilx TEK, as a knowledge system, is inherently adaptive to respond to complexity. Interdependence: goals can only be achieved through cooperation and commitment of participants (Armitage et al., 2009; Berkes et al., 2007; Fabricius & Currie, 2015) The Program’s tripartite management structure recognized that the three parties were co-dependent and needed to cooperate. Worldviews among the Program’s leaders and participants varied “wildly.” Networks and linkages: social and governance networks with functioning vertical and horizontal linkages (Ö Bodin & Crona, 2009) The COBTWG, Ad hoc Working Groups and community networks provided horizontal linkages; political issues were addressed through vertical linkages (e.g., Syilx Council of Chiefs). The strategy to keep COBTWG small meant some horizontal linkages sometimes had to be sacrificed. Incentives: brought about through crisis or policy change (Armitage et al., 2009) The existential crisis of the loss of salmon was the impetus for Syilx leaders’ determination; Endangered species policies in the US induced action and (resources) on the part of public utility Place: strong sense of place and connection to the system in question (Armitage et al., 2009; Berkes, 2018; Fabricius & Currie, 2015) The Syilx people are inherently and profoundly connected to their land, the water, the fish and all of the natural life. High turnover of provincial staff meant a continuous onboarding and capacity building of new personnel. Time and commitment: to long-term institution-building, collaboration, learning, and building relationships (Armitage et al., 2009; Fabricius & Currie, 2015) Syilx leaders and elders committed 7-generations to restoring salmon. The Program in operation for over 25 years. Turnover of provincial staff; with new members having limited historical knowledge and cross-cultural sensibilities. Power balance: to avoid distrust, lack of commitment and ineffectual decision-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Berkes, 2007; Fabricius & Currie, 2015) The Program operated in an egalitarian consensus decision-making manner. Funding from public utilities in the US channelled through Syilx institutions gave ONA power vis-à-vis provincial and federal governments. Conflicts with provincial staff due to their priorities for resident fish species, and due to invasive species introduced by the province. Resource system: well defined resource system, small scale resource use context to reduce competing interests and institutional complexities (Armitage et al., 2009; Dietz et al., 2003) Common vision for the Program established with a focus squarely placed on sockeye salmon with the greatest chance of short-term restoration (as compared to other fish species). A vast anadromous resource system with inland and marine aquatic elements and temporal and spatial complexity, and many unknowns. Resources: resources available for local partners to access (Armitage et al., 2009; Fabricius & Currie, 2015; Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023) Washington state public utilities provided critical and continuous resources at key junctures. Despite continuous funding from US-based public utilities, time spent fulfilling the requirements of donors has been onerous and time consuming. Leadership: to champion and steer the process, ideally with a long-term connection to place (Armitage et al., 2009; Fabricius & Currie, 2015) ONA provided unrelenting leadership and vision; champions within DFO and FLNRORD provided institutional links in the provincial and federal government at critical moments of the Program. Leadership in the provincial government was inconsistent, creating setbacks. Knowledge systems: an openness to share and draw upon a plurality of knowledge systems/sources (Armitage et al., 2009; Berkes, 2007) The project drew on the strengths of both Western Science and Syilx TEK at different junctures. Knowledge from Indigenous sources had a higher burden of proof and was misunderstood by non-Indigenous participants. 44 In the early stages, individual advocates within DFO and FLNRORD were essential to propelling the Program forward. The provincial and federal governments had fragmented stances on Okanagan fisheries. For DFO, Okanagan fish stock constituted a negligible fraction of the significant British Columbia fisheries population, relegating it to a low-priority status. Moreover, there was no permanent DFO staff presence in the Okanagan region. The provincial government focused mainly on recreational fisheries and angling, such as kokanee and rainbow trout, potentially conflicting with sockeye populations. Efforts to launch the Program were driven by personal commitment rather than institutional directives. Faced with the prevailing colonial attitudes, these champions had to navigate internal resistance, as highlighted by a DFO scientist: “When I started working with the ONA, one of the things I was advised is that I should just talk with them, but do nothing, make no commitments, make no attempts to support them in any kind of tangible way. And I just said, ‘Why would we do that? These are sincere, respectful people who have invited us because we have expertise, they’re open to working with us, and we’re all open to learning from each other. Why would I behave in a way that would simply send yet another First Nation group back to the barricades, where they developed an intense dislike for us as an institution?’” 2.4.1.3 An opportunistic source of funding The Okanagan Sockeye Program was significantly enabled by funding from the Washington State Public Utility Districts (PUDs). Under the mandate of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, major dams operating on the Columbia River system are required to mitigate salmon losses as a condition for renewing their dam-operating licenses. During a workshop hosted by ONA in Washington State, several PUDs were actively exploring new 45 avenues to fulfill their mitigation responsibilities. The ground-breaking idea of financing salmon restoration in Canada as a mitigation strategy originated from a forward-thinking leader within Douglas County PUD. This innovative approach was later adopted by Chelan and Grant PUDs as well. These funds from the PUDs were instrumental in supporting key elements of OSP, including developing the Fish and Water Management Tool and establishing the ONA fish hatchery. Provincial staffers, who had observed decades of inertia in water and fisheries restoration efforts, recognized the influx of PUD funding as “a game changer.” One initial challenge was the logistical complexity of transferring funds from US-based PUDs to a Canadian entity without getting entangled in bureaucratic complications associated with official government channels. This issue was ingeniously resolved through the leveraging of intertribal relations and networks. The Colville Confederated Tribe acted as an intermediary, receiving the funds from the PUDs, and transferred them to ONA. This streamlined financial arrangement circumvented red tape and facilitated the swift implementation of restoration projects—a testament to the Program’s cross-border collaboration and creative problem-solving effectiveness. 2.4.2 Implementation of the Sockeye Program Restoring Okanagan sockeye presented a quintessential complex systems problem. What emerged in response was a co-management institutional framework with characteristics of adaptive co-management, which helped address the uncertainty and unpredictability of the system as well as facilitated shared learning among partners and Syilx community involvement. 46 2.4.2.1 Co-management structures COBTWG was established as a tripartite technical group comprising ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD to implement the Program. This decision-making body met quarterly to review operational progress and made decisions by consensus. It overcame a common downfall in co-management—unequal power distribution—by requiring unanimous decisions and rotating chairmanship. Also, public utilities from the U.S. contributed funding through Syilx institutional channels, which helped to redress historical power imbalances with the state. Keeping COBTWG as a technical table and elevating political issues to higher levels was an important design feature. The group was intentionally kept small, involving only key partners. Ad hoc Working Groups were created to execute the Program’s daily tasks in conjunction with ONA’s Fisheries Department. The groups were adaptive, bringing in expertise as required, and functioning in a nimble, tactile, and collaborative manner, often making on-the-spot decisions during field meetings. The group’s themes include fish water management, habitat restoration, fish passage, and TEK. Among them, the TEK Ad hoc group stood out, with ONA staff serving as the bridge between the Syilx community and the Program. Syilx community members played a crucial role as the “small champions” on the land. They conducted fish counts, provided technical advice, and participated in ceremonies and feasts. These practices contributed to the Program’s technical aspects and embodied the reciprocal respect and relationships central to Syilx TEK. 2.4.2.2 An adaptive co-management process The alliance established an adaptive restoration process featuring an iterative implementation and feedback cycle. This strategy was chosen in light of the social ecosystem’s 47 complexity, its inherent interdependencies, and the unknowns and risks involved. Consequently, three major projects were developed under the Program. First, rebuilding the wild-origin sockeye population in Osoyoos Lake included designing and deploying a novel Fish and Water Management Tool in 2004. Second, the Program expanded the range of sockeye to Skaha Lake, situated upstream of Osoyoos Lake. Executed over a span of 12 years, this project entailed re-engineering the floodgates at McIntyre Dam, operating a fishway at Okanagan Falls Dam to allow fish passage, and constructing and operationalizing a fish hatchery in Penticton. Third, the Okanagan River Restoration Initiative aimed to improve both off-channel and in-channel habitats in the Okanagan River, its floodplain, and associated tributaries to benefit all native species of anadromous and resident fish. These projects were staged with the objectives of monitoring, learning, and adapting. A case in point is the 12-year project designed to reintroduce sockeye into Skaha Lake, framed as an adaptive learning plan. Initially, the provincial government expressed concerns that reintroducing sockeye could negatively impact the already depressed kokanee populations. Although ONA’s Syilx TEK process suggested that the two species could co-exist, federal and particularly provincial partners sought reassurance. This 12-year experiment allowed the partnership to monitor inter-species interactions and population dynamics, ultimately demonstrating that both fish species and other species of interest could thrive. Another point of contention was the sockeye’s upstream trajectory to Skaha Lake; Western engineers and provincial scientists were initially skeptical that this was feasible. However, in line with Syilx TEK, the sockeye salmon successfully navigated past the gates at McIntyre Dam and through Okanagan Falls Dam to reach Skaha Lake, prompting subsequent adaptations in COBTWG’s plans. 48 2.4.2.3 An adaptive tool for managing fish and water The Fish Water Management Tool emerged as the most innovative outcome of the Sockeye Program, as unanimously identified by all interviewees. This tool allows for the adaptive co-management of water flows in real-time and is heralded as one of today’s most data-rich systems in terms of its implications for natural resource outcomes. The tool enables users to assess biophysical process interactions, scrutinize hydrological impacts on both property and fish across multiple locations, and anticipate the socioeconomic consequences of water management decisions—such as property damage risks or irrigation shortages (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019). Studies confirm its efficacy. Comparing the years before and after 2003, when the tool was deployed, observed improvements in following the Okanagan Basin Implementation guidelines on salmon egg to fry emergence compliance increased from 20-90% (K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019; Kim D Hyatt et al., 2015). The Fish Water Management Tool stands as a robust example of an application designed to reconcile multiple objectives amid social and ecological tensions, competing water interests, escalating demands for human water use, diminishing water availability, and species-at-risk situations (Marmorek et al., 2019). Within the Program context, the Fish Water Management Tool served as a linchpin in solidifying cross-cultural and interinstitutional relationships, particularly during the critical phase when partners were becoming acquainted with one another. The co-design and deployment of the tool served to deepen the relationships among partners and` enhance transparency once the tool became operational. Being able to visualize the variables and diverse interests that were factored into the decision-making process engendered greater trust among partners and users. 49 2.4.2.4 Social learning and capacity bridging “There was a lot of capacity building: the fisheries biologists had to become water managers, the hydrologists had to become fisheries biologists, whether they liked it or not. Because the way in which we put this together, we recognized that interdisciplinary expertise would be required. And we needed to be able to talk to each other in a common language. And so there was quite a lot of learning that went on, particularly in the first few years of the work.” – ONA Fisheries Biologist. The Sockeye Program marked the first time that ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD came together with their distinct institutional cultures and worldviews for a common cause. This diversity has the potential to enhance social-ecological management (D. C. Natcher et al., 2005; Christina Prell et al., 2009; Mark S. Reed, 2008). The alliance addressed differences through ‘capacity bridging,’ a concept that acknowledges that all parties bring skills and knowledge to a collaborative experience and applies reciprocity in knowledge-sharing (AHA Centre, 2018; CDAC Network, n.d.; Muir et al., 2023). Provincial staff found it eye-opening to understand the Syilx cultural perspective on fish as entities with intrinsic value, contrasting sharply with dominant Western economic viewpoints. One DFO Fisheries Scientist explained the fundamental dissonance between Western and Syilx worldviews: “The Western cultural perspective is social-economically motivated. That’s where most of the attention has gone over the last 100 years. From a First Nations perspective, it’s quite different. It’s, well, ‘we live in this place. And we have these populations. And it doesn’t matter whether they’re enormously productive, or marginally productive. These are the populations we have and for which we wish to maintain cultural continuity.’ And so, from that point of view, you know, a [Western] agency would have written off Okanagan salmon as a 50 hopelessly diminished population, not worthy of time, expertise, or investment. From a First Nation perspective, ‘they are invaluable, and we will spend the next seven generations doing our utmost to restore them.’ So those two worldviews are wildly at odds with each other.” – DFO Fisheries Scientist However, DFO has made some progress towards convergence in Western and First Nations worldviews, having shifted from its aim of maximizing biomass of fish harvest to maximizing biodiversity, which is more closely aligned with Syilx perspectives. The Sockeye Program also facilitated ONA’s ability to operate within a Western bureaucratic structure, and its capacity broadly. Notably, ONA has seen exponential growth in its fisheries staff trained in Western science over the last two decades: from two permanent staff (a policy advisor and a biologist) to 50 full-time staff and 25 seasonal employees. Bridging capacities involved leveraging the complementary strengths of Western science and Indigenous knowledge, a cornerstone of adaptive co-management strategies. The Fish Water Management Tool, for example, was underpinned by Western scientific principles, while TEK contributed place-based contextual knowledge, such as understanding aquatic ecosystem dynamics, historical fish species abundance before 1900, and nuanced spatial and population trends. Initially, there was resistance from some non-Indigenous colleagues to fully integrate TEK, as reflected in the experiences of ONA staff. A Fisheries Biologist from the ONA recounted interactions with a provincial government representative who was visibly skeptical about the validity of TEK, manifesting in dismissive gestures like eye rolls at its mention. This attitude, however, has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. The same biologist noted, “But basically, the last couple of years, they’ve done a 180 and definitely support it,” 51 indicating a marked shift towards recognizing and valuing TEK’s contribution to environmental science and management. Bridging capacity and knowledge systems remains a challenge given the predominance of Western systems focused on written documentation as building blocks of science and transactional communications. Syilx knowledge co-creation and problem-solving are dialogic and relational. They cannot be reduced to “commenting on a written framework” or “providing a list,” as one ONA Fisheries Biologist points out, in which case “governments will interpret for you and effectively sideline Syilx voices.” 2.4.2.5 Conflict and trust Three distinct organizations, ONA, DFO, and RORD, agreed to collaborate for the first time. Institutionally, the three partners started from dramatically different places. ONA regarded the Syilx people as the legitimate rightsholders and caretakers of their lands, whereas DFO and FLNRORD reflected prevailing colonial attitudes at the time. This meant that trust, confidence, and social capital had to be built and conflict resolution mechanisms established. Developing a shared vision for the future of Okanagan sockeye salmon helped solidify the alliance, and partners quickly learned they could work towards a common cause. Trust among the groups was further cemented as the COBTWG garnered a reputation for effective problem-solving. The technical character of the alliance also helped, as did the longevity of individuals who shared a common purpose, remained on the Program for decades, and built interpersonal relationships with other COBTWG members. These observations align with academic research, which underscores the importance of setting and meeting expectations for trust-building (Armitage et al., 2009; Hahn et al., 2006; Mark S. Reed, 2008). Moreover, the 52 research highlights the crucial role of trust in establishing legitimacy within the realm of natural resource governance (R. A. Turner et al., 2016). Despite these advances, conflicts were inevitable. These were rooted mainly in jurisdictional ambiguities: the province oversees residential fish, the federal government manages anadromous fish, and the Syilx Nation holds aboriginal title and rights over the fisheries. Provincial concerns were the most cited, such as the Program’s impact on the resident kokanee population, the aquatic food web, the potential loss of recreational fishing opportunities, and genetic integrity related to the hybridization of kokanee and sockeye salmon (DFO, 2017; Kim Hyatt et al., 2019; Veale & Russello, 2016).7 The introduction of hatchery fry into Okanagan Lake, for example, was described by ONA staff as an “uphill battle” with the province, even though it was part of the Sockeye Program’s original plan and the rationale for the 12-year Skaha learning project. Such decisions required approval from the Introductions and Transfers Committee, a state body with provincial and federal representation. From a Syilx perspective, these conflicts reflected a lack of trust in their Nation’s knowledge and implementation capacity. ONA staff shared their frustration over being subjected to a higher standard for validating their technical knowledge compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, a disparity they identified as systemic racism. and which undermined trust. This requirement for additional validation not only undermined trust but also reflects deeper issues of imbalance of knowledge systems. Similarly, interviews with DFO acknowledged the delicate nature of trust in these 7 Concerns about the introduction of sockeye salmon fry and the potential for genetic impacts on resident kokanee populations were the subject of several studies, which concluded that the immediate impact on food webs and sensitive aquatic biota, including kokanee, were likely minimal (Veale and Russello 2016, DFO 2017, Hyatt et al. 2019). 53 collaborations. DFO interviews also acknowledged the fragile nature of trust, which required hard work to build and could quickly disappear: “Finding common cause was absolutely essential; by having an open and trusting relationship and building further trust, which can be eroded very quickly, [it is] built with a great deal of work and can vanish in a hurry if missteps are made.” – DFO Fisheries Scientist Staff turnover within the province posed another challenge when new members who were either poorly informed, inflexible, or intent on asserting authority joined the group. In these instances, proactive measures were taken by COBTWG members, including taking exception to the appointments and finding ways to undo them or drawing on the political intervention of ONA leadership. 2.4.2.6 The role of Syilx TEK The role of TEK was infused throughout the collaborative experience of the Program. The previous sections highlight the use of TEK in terms of data points and knowledge that complemented Western science. More profoundly, however, is the significance of TEK and its value system, worldviews, and ethical foundation, which, as claimed by McGregor (2021b), is inseparable from the people who hold and live this knowledge. TEK motivated and inspired Syilx leadership to fight for decades to bring salmon home, to formally commit seven generations to work on salmon restoration, to create a vision for the Program, and to establish and nurture the cross-cultural collaboration that has endured since the 1990s and continues to this day. If not for the profound Syilx commitment, as one interviewee said, “the salmon would be gone.” 54 Salmon has deep existential significance for the Syilx people, as noted by Syilx interviewees when asked about their responsibility to salmon: “We [the Syilx people] are all responsible for protecting our land, our water, and our animals; we need to do that so that we can still be Syilx.” “If we’re not going to do it [restore sockeye salmon], then who’s going to do it? It’s our responsibility.” “The Okanagan people are responsible for the fish, water, and land; we have an obligation to protect and restore it. The Okanagan Nation people – we’re connected to the land and the water and it’s who we are. And I really think it’s what we have to do.” The Syilx Okanagan people believe that they were created to act as caretakers of their lands, and in return, they will be looked after (ONA, 2017). This obligation cannot be given away; it is the foundation of who the Syilx people are and of their continued existence on the land. Embedded within this belief is the concept of respect and reciprocity. ‘Caretaking’ and ‘stewardship’ are standard protocols across Indigenous communities: they represent the protocols in which humans approach the world with the attitude of respect to interconnected human and non-human beings, entities, and collectives, which have reciprocal relationships with one another (K. P. Whyte et al., 2016). The relevance of this belief system is that one way or another, the Syilx people would find a way to bring their salmon home. Or, as a DFO interviewee put it, for the Syilx people, “salmon restoration was a cultural imperative.” 2.4.2.7 Sustainability – an ongoing challenge and opportunity The question of whether the tripartite alliance will endure over time remains open-ended. As highlighted by some interviewees, the group has navigated turbulent waters. With a 55 fluctuating membership of 20 to 25 individuals, achieving consensus—mandatory for the sustainability of the partnership—has been challenging. For instance, the group faced a crucial divergence of opinions regarding the necessity of a Federal Science Review after completing the 12-year Skaha Lake Project. This review was intended to assess the feasibility of further extending the range of sockeye. Despite these disagreements, COBTWG members recognized the invaluable nature of their collective efforts and managed to bridge their differences. The sustainability of complex inter-institutional collaborations like COBTWG is inherently difficult. A concern arises as key individuals who dedicated their careers to the Program have left or are nearing retirement. Nevertheless, interviewees expressed optimism for the future. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants emphasized that the Program’s approach to cross-cultural collaboration has evolved into “the new norm,” deemed “the new way of doing business,” and is universally acknowledged as “the right thing to do.” Asked about the resilience and sustainability of the COBTWG, as a legal tool, one ONA Fisheries Biologist put it this way: “It wasn’t the MOU itself [that created the partnership], it was the creation of the MOU as a process that created the relationship, and the relationship [in turn] created the COBTWG. ‘Relationship’ represents one of the Four Food Chiefs in the Syilx traditional decision-making and governance process.” From an ONA perspective, both the cross-cultural collaboration and the Sockeye Program are still in their infancy. Given that colonial structures have dominated for over a century, Indigenous systems continue to be overshadowed. Redressing the power imbalances may require a comparable amount of time. 56 2.5 Discussion Our analysis provides insights into the multidimensional challenges faced by the Okanagan Sockeye Program over its 25-year existence, emphasizing the role of TEK, adaptive co-management, and social learning. Syilx Indigenous leaders initially pushed to restore declining fish stocks. Their warnings, largely unheeded for decades, eventually found support through favorable institutional and policy environments in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Endangered Species Act was pivotal, offering a legislative backbone that enabled Washington State dam operators to finance much of the Okanagan Sockeye Program over the decades. Once the ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD agreed to form a tripartite alliance, adaptive structures, processes, and tools were created that allowed the three partners to experiment, learn, innovate, adapt, and problem-solve. Relationships and trust were central features of the partnership, which took time, human interaction, and personal commitment to establish and maintain. The tripartite alliance encountered hurdles along its trajectory, underscoring the complex interplay of trust, jurisdiction, and equity in collaborative environmental management and restoration efforts. The conflict that arose was largely jurisdictional, given overlapping mandates, as observed by Kadykalo et al. (2022) in their research on British Columbia fisheries. Reintroducing sockeye salmon raised provincial concerns over impacts on resident kokanee populations, the lake ecosystem’s food web, and genetic integrity. Double standards were another source of tension, with ONA staff reporting that they faced more stringent technical requirements than their counterparts. This dichotomy contributed to feelings of systemic racism and distrust. Power imbalances were reflected in institutional structures such as the Introductions and Transfers Committee and the Federal Science Review, which had authority at key junctures of the Program and excluded Indigenous representation. Importantly, the dominance of Western 57 bureaucratic systems posed a challenge to effective knowledge co-production, a key element of co-management (Armitage et al., 2009; Plummer, 2013). Restoring anadromous salmon in the Okanagan was a quintessential complex adaptive systems problem, and the tripartite alliance responded with structures and processes characteristic of adaptive management (Armitage et al., 2007; C. Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2004). The Sockeye Program was adaptive by design, employing iterative learning cycles to respond to new information. One example of the Program’s adaptive elements is the 12-year experiment to understand how the reintroduction and expansion of sockeye range would affect ecosystem dynamics. Ad hoc groups comprising required specialists were created to address operational questions on the ground and provide feedback to the alliance is another. Western science and TEK contributed to the Program at distinct junctures, as exemplified by innovations like the Fish Water Management Tool that allows for real-time transparent water and fish management (DFO, 2017; K. Hyatt & Stockwell, 2019; Veale & Russello, 2016). With its inherently holistic characteristics, TEK provided overall guidance in dealing with the complexity of the ecosystem, a characteristic of TEK described in the literature (Berkes, 2018; Houde, 2007). The Sockeye Program’s approach to capacity bridging shares similarities with social learning, which, is a key component of adaptive co-management (Armitage et al., 2007; Berkes, 2009a). By emphasizing the reconciliation of diverse perspectives from groups with unique institutional cultures and worldviews, the Program aligns closely with the tenets of social learning (Armitage et al., 2008; Berkes et al., 2003; Mark S Reed et al., 2010). The juxtaposition of Syilx and Western perspectives, such as viewing fish as autonomous beings compared to economic resources, underscores the challenge of mutual understanding and negotiation in 58 learning frameworks. Through social learning, however, the Program witnessed a change in emphasis from maximizing fish harvest to prioritizing biodiversity, and outcomes. This shift illustrates how co-management partners have shaped their worldviews, consistent with observations by others, such as Pahl-Wostl (2009) and Berkes et al. (2003). Furthermore, although challenges remain in addressing power imbalances and cultural sensitivities, TEK’s growing acknowledgment among partners reveals the transformative potential of capacity bridging and social learning in reshaping prevailing attitudes and practices. The salience of Syilx TEK in the resurgence of sockeye salmon cannot be overstated. While Syilx Knowledge Keepers and community members provided “knowledge” such as species interrelationships, spatial trends, and population dynamics, the true essence of TEK’s role lay in its function as a deeply ingrained system of beliefs, values, and way of being. This aligns with writings by D. McGregor (2004), Houde (2007), (Berkes, 2018), and others. For the Syilx people, restoring sockeye salmon was a cultural imperative intertwined with a holistic sense of responsibility to the land, water, and fish. Cultural ceremonies served to fortify the Syilx community’s relationship with, and obligations toward, the salmon, underscoring a sense of reciprocity and responsibility. Syilx elders and leaders pledged multiple generations to the task of restoring sockeye, a commitment deeply tied to their collective identity. Such lived values and behaviors corroborate McGregor’s assertion of TEK as a way of being and something that must be lived by the people who hold the knowledge, that is, the knowledge is inseparable from the people who hold it (D. McGregor, 2021b). Considering the Sockeye Program’s effectiveness against the backdrop of Canada’s evolving co-management challenges, as outlined by Swerdfager and Armitage (2023), a few insights emerge. First, the lack of legal clarity and policy vacuum related to fisheries and marine 59 environmental stewardship occasionally strained the tripartite alliance, such as when decisions required approval from the Introduction and Transfers Committee. Nonetheless, the Memorandum of Understanding, which took five years to finalize, has proven resilient thus far. Second, on knowledge co-generation, the alliance has faced obstacles, especially concerning the acceptance of TEK; however, as trust among partners has grown, the value of TEK has become increasingly recognized. Third, on financial resources, the Program has benefited from a sustained funding stream provided by Washington State dam operators. While these resources have not completely eased financial burdens, they have been instrumental in sustaining the Program for over two decades. Fourth, although human resource turnover and a lack of cultural understanding within government personnel have posed challenges, the alliance has proactively developed institutional strategies to mitigate these difficulties, demonstrating its resilience and adaptability. Finally, the experience of the tripartite alliance aligns with Rodon’s (2021) nuanced view of co-management, showcasing elements of co-option, transaction, and self-determination. Co-option was apparent as Syilx partners navigated and adapted to Western bureaucratic norms and power dynamics. On the transactional front, the collaboration fostered a unique institutional culture within the alliance, blending aspects of both Syilx and Western traditions to facilitate genuine power-sharing. However, the self-determination component remains an ongoing endeavor, reflecting the broader Canadian context where reconciliation and the integration of UNDRIP principles are still works in progress. 60 2.6 Conclusion The restoration of Okanagan sockeye salmon illustrates how a confluence of factors can align to achieve a goal originally deemed hopeless. At its core, the success of the Okanagan Sockeye Program can be attributed to the unrelenting efforts of the Syilx Nation, whose multi-generational outlook and existential connection to the salmon imbued the Program with a sense of urgency and commitment – effectively making failure an unacceptable option. Conditions observed in the Sockeye Program may not be easily replicable due to their context-specific nature. Nevertheless, experience from the Program offers lessons for similar endeavors, underscoring the importance of acknowledging the Okanagan Nation Alliance as a legitimate government with decision-making authority equal to those of the provincial and federal governments, the innovative sourcing of sustained funding, and the time requirements and flexibility to adapt and experiment within inherently uncertain and complex social ecosystems. The partnership, however, has endured over decades and withstood hurdles, including systemic racism. Thus, while the exact formula for the Okanagan Sockeye initiative’s success might be difficult to reproduce wholesale, its foundational principles could be helpful for future co-management and conservation efforts seeking to navigate their own unique challenges and opportunities. At a time when co-management in Indigenous settings finds itself at a crossroads, as argued by Swerdfager and Armitage (2023), this guidance could prove useful. The Okanagan Sockeye Program stands as a testament to successful co-management. Yet, it raises an important question: why have similar initiatives in other Indigenous territories within the Columbia watershed faltered to the point that the Okanagan initiative was originally considered an illusion? Future research into other cases should explore this question to glean both lessons and cautionary tales. With Indigenous environmental governance gaining 61 momentum in British Columbia and Canada, spurred by rising calls for Indigenous rights and the adoption of UNDRIP, such studies become even more pertinent, especially in the current climate crisis. 62 Chapter 3: The Undercurrents of Water Stewardship in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley: Setting the stage for ethical space engagement (Manuscript 2) Abstract Defined as the intersection of Indigenous and Western thought and worldviews, ‘ethical space’ underscores the importance of recognizing the invisible forces and influential undercurrents in the complex interplay of cross-cultural relationships. This study explores the notion of ethical space by investigating Indigenous and non-Indigenous views on water stewardship in the Syilx Okanagan First Nation territory in British Columbia, Canada. Drawing on qualitative interviews with Syilx and non-Indigenous Knowledge Keepers, professionals, water experts, government officials, and stakeholders, we identify divergent and convergent perspectives on water stewardship. We find that views overlapped in terms of colonial water governance frameworks that unfairly exclude the Syilx Nation. Indigenous perspectives, however, center on their inherent and constitutional rights to water as foundational given their unceded and un-surrendered status, while non-Indigenous perspectives often overlook these historical injustices and legal nuances. Deep-rooted ontological and axiological differences are reflected in responses with water considered a ‘resource’ by non-Indigenous participants, which prioritizes human-centric and economic aspects, and a sacred ‘relative’ by Syilx interviewees, which commands the respect and protection of water. The two groups coalesced on the importance of building non-Indigenous cultural competencies, and understandings of the historical underpinnings of exclusionary colonial governance and legal systems. Accounts point to the formidable challenges of forming ethical spaces of engagement amidst innate ethical, moral, and legal complexities and broader political, economic, and social realities. Simultaneously, they underscore the imperative for 63 cross-cultural collaboration, which ethical space as a framework can facilitate. Future research should focus on the practical application of ethical space in multi-institutional contexts, the role of policy in supporting ethical space engagements, and the long-term effects of these engagements on Indigenous-Western relations. 3.1 Introduction Ecological degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change have precipitated a re-evaluation of conventional environmental governance, pushing us toward an epistemological and ontological shift that recognizes the complexity of human-environment interactions (Gadgil et al., 1993; Portner et al., 2021; Steffen et al., 2011; K. Whyte, 2017). Central to this transformation is the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, a critical component often overlooked in mainstream environmental discourse. Indigenous wisdom offers invaluable insights into sustainable practices as well as fosters a more harmonious coexistence with nature (Berkes, 2018; Ellen et al., 2000; D. McGregor, 2021b; Nakashima & Krupnik, 2018; Reyes-García et al., 2022). Rooted in generational knowledge and a nuanced understanding of local ecosystems, Indigenous perspectives embody a long-standing commitment to environmental balance that draws on notions of ‘interconnectedness’ and ‘reciprocity,’ concepts that subvert the anthropocentric and extractive ideologies prevalent in Western environmental management (Battiste, 2005; Berkes, 2018; D. McGregor, 2018; K. Whyte, 2017). Actively collaborating with Indigenous communities not only broadens the scope of potential solutions to environmental problems but also enables us to evaluate the long-term consequences of our actions across multiple dimensions—social, economic, and ecological—and within various cultural contexts (Berkes, 2018; Ellen et al., 2000). 64 At the core of this contemporary discourse lies the notion of ‘ethical space,’ a dynamic framework designed to recognize and honor the distinct worldviews and values of Indigenous communities while simultaneously facilitating meaningful collaboration with non-Indigenous groups (Bridge, 2023b; Ermine, 2007; Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). This paradigm has gained traction in the sphere of Indigenous-non-Indigenous collaborations, with a view to amplifying respectful dialogue and engagement, weaving Indigenous wisdom with Western scientific insights, and reinforcing Indigenous leadership and self-determination (Littlechild & Sutherland, 2021). Drawing on the concept of ‘ethical space,’ this paper examines cross-cultural perspectives on water in the Syilx Okanagan territory of British Columbia. Our objectives are twofold: first, to analyze collective Syilx and non-Indigenous positionalities on water stewardship, focusing on identifying points of divergence and convergence. Second, to explore the implications of the interplay of perspectives for ethical space engagement and cross-cultural collaboration on water stewardship. The paper is structured in two main parts. An initial framework outlines key concepts in Indigenous environmental governance and ethical space, followed by a detailed description of the study context in the Okanagan region. The subsequent section presents our research methods, analysis, findings, and a comprehensive discussion and conclusion. In this study, we distinguish between Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives on water stewardship, recognizing that these perspectives exist along a spectrum and are not simply binary opposites. This nuanced approach is employed to explore the subtleties and intricacies inherent in the worldviews and lived experiences of these communities. However, it is important 65 to note that this dichotomous framework is not intended to draw conclusions in absolutes; rather, it serves as a means to uncover and appreciate the diverse and complex perspectives present in water governance discussions. Throughout the paper, ‘Okanagan’ refers both to the Syilx Okanagan peoples and the geographic location of their traditional lands in British Columbia. In Canada, the term ‘Indigenous’ includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples (Indigenous Foundations, 2009). ‘First Nation’ refers to Aboriginal peoples of Canada who are not Métis or Inuit, while ‘Aboriginal’ is used to describe the first inhabitants of Canada, encompassing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. These terms are capitalized following guidelines for writing about Indigenous Peoples (Younging, 2018). 3.2 Background 3.2.1 Conceptual Background 3.2.1.1 Indigenous Environmental Governance Marked by complexity and historical colonial policies, the landscape of Indigenous legal and jurisdictional governance in Canada brings a unique and critical perspective to the field of environmental stewardship. Indigenous groups have their original legal frameworks and constitutions, which have been systematically undermined by colonial systems (von der Porten, 2012). Instruments such as the Indian Act have perpetuated control and assimilation, fundamentally altering traditional governance systems (Henderson, 2020). The Indigenous environmental governance literature emphasizes self-determination as a cornerstone of decolonization and Indigenous well-being (Clogg et al., 2016; Craig, 2002; Curran, 2019; Henderson, 2020; von der Porten, 2012; von der Porten & de Loë, 2013). Self-66 determination raises critical questions about decision-making autonomy, the valuation of Indigenous knowledge, and the design and implementation of governance structures (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015). D. McGregor et al. (2023) argue that Indigenous self-determination extends beyond political autonomy to encompass values like relationality, land significance, and freedom from domination. It involves reclaiming Indigenous knowledge and practices and restoring land-based relationships (D. McGregor, 2021b). This broader conception of self-determination is crucial for Indigenous communities to govern their lands, increasingly under threat from government and corporate interests (Shrinkhal, 2021). This framing of self-determination is reflected in Indigenous water governance. Indigenous values and beliefs on water, which emphasize sacredness and holism, are foundational to ecologically integrated and culturally sensitive Indigenous governance systems (Altman, 2002; Groenfeldt, 2006; Laborde & Jackson, 2022; D. McGregor, 2012, 2014b; Strang, 2020; Wildcat, 2010). Non-Indigenous societies, influenced by Western legal frameworks, often perceive water primarily as a resource to be utilized, managed, and commodified, which is reflected in their governance systems, where water is approached through a lens of ownership and rights allocation (Getches, 2015; Sam, 2013). These Western-based systems place precedence on human needs and economic growth at the expense of ecological balance (Laborde & Jackson, 2022; Yates et al., 2017). Since the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada’s legal framework has shifted from justifying infringements on Indigenous rights to increasingly recognizing and protecting these rights (Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023; von der Porten, 2012). Landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as R. v. Sparrow (1990) and Tsilhqot’in (2014), re-affirmed Indigenous rights asserted in the 1763 Royal Proclamation and imposed a duty to consult and accommodate entities using 67 Indigenous lands (von der Porten, 2012). Many of these legal advancements have occurred in British Columbia, where most First Nations do not have treaty agreements. This underscores the significance of unceded lands in legal arguments (Curry et al., 2014). Indigenous peoples are also actively re-establishing their own forms of government (Swerdfager & Armitage, 2023). The Inuit have set up their own governments in three of four Inuit regions, for example, and First Nations and Métis are parties to modern treaties that have enabled the creation of new governing institutions (von der Porten, 2012). This trajectory aligns with Indigenous governance principles and reflects efforts to incorporate Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty into Canadian legal and policy frameworks (von der Porten, 2012). 3.2.1.2 Ethical Space Building on the legal and political dimensions of Indigenous governance, the concept of ‘ethical space’ introduces a vital philosophical perspective to Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations. Ethical space refers to the physical or conceptual environment in which principled decisions and actions take place and within which ethical principles, values, and norms are applied and negotiated; it is considered a social construct that is shaped by cultural, political, and economic factors (De Keere, 2020). The concept is seen to be pivotal in fostering meaningful cross-cultural collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, as highlighted in the works of Bridge (2023), Brunger et al. (2014), and Bryce (2014), and offers a transformative approach for enhancing conservation and social-ecological restoration (Abu et al., 2019; Bridge, 2023b; Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2018; Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022; C. D. Smith, 2020; Y2Y, 2021). 68 In the Indigenous-non-Indigenous context, ‘ethical space’ came into use following Willie Ermine’s (2007) publication “The Ethical Space of Engagement.” In his article, Ermine, a Sturgeon Lake First Nation professor, describes ethical space as being “formed when two societies, with disparate worldviews, are poised to engage each other” (Ermine, 2007, p. 193). Ermine’s inspiration is derived from Roger Poole’s book “Toward Deep Subjectivity,” in which Poole draws attention to the “electrical nature” of the empty space observed in a photograph of two men sitting on a park bench, one man in army fatigues representing the dominant occupying force and the other in peasant clothing representing the occupied – a concept Poole refers to as ethical space. Ermine describes this space as an “electric” and “schismatic ambiance” between peoples and cultures, particularly evident when Indigenous and Western worlds physically and philosophically encounter each other. He emphasizes that deeper thoughts, interests, and assumptions, often invisible, inevitably influence the nature of engagement and relationships. Thus, acknowledging and bringing these underlying forces to bear is crucial in confronting cross-cultural differences in knowledge and legal systems. Ethical space, therefore, establishes a framework for this cultural encounter. As a relatively recent approach to Indigenous-non-Indigenous engagement, ethical space has seen limited research on its practical implementation (Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). A global review of ethical space in Indigenous-conservation partnerships conducted by Nikolakis and Hotte (2022), points to the value of introspection and reflection and dialogic processes and principles, which can lead to challenging colonial hierarchies and imbalances of power and facilitate Indigenous-led approaches. In her analysis of ethical space competencies in Canada, Nadeau (2022) identifies three key themes related to ethical space from practitioners: pre-engagement, relational accountability, and reflexivity. Dr. Reg Crowshoe, a Piikani 69 Blackfoot Elder and an early advocate of ethical space practice, cautions against attempting to integrate Indigenous processes and knowledge with mainstream institutions, which has led to cultural confusion. He asserts that ethical space is about the co-creation of something new as a result of linking the worldviews of Indigenous and Western cultures (Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017). 3.2.2 Study Background The Okanagan Valley is located in the southern interior of British Columbia, the most westerly province of Canada. Water is a persistent concern in the Okanagan, given that its per capita water availability is the lowest in the country and its consumption is twice the national average (OBWB, 2011, n.d.-d). The Syilx Okanagan Nation is an Indigenous people that have resided from time immemorial in the Okanagan and Columbia River water basins across British Columbia in Canada and Washington State in the U.S. (Good Water, 2018). Now separated by the Canada-US border, the British Columbia-based Syilx peoples are represented by the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA), a First Nations government established in 1981 to represent seven member bands in its territory (ONA, n/d-a). ONA and Syilx bands are actively involved in land and water stewardship, spearheading multiple conservation projects targeting endangered species and fragile ecosystems (ONA, n/d-b). 3.2.2.1 Water Governance in the Okanagan The Canadian Constitution designates water as an area of provincial jurisdiction, granting each province the authority and responsibility to regulate and manage water resources within its boundaries (Government of Canada, 2020), while the federal government retains authority to 70 regulate fisheries, shipping, and navigation (Becklumb, 2013). In British Columbia, the 2016 Water Sustainability Act is the primary legislation governing water use, allocation, and protection in the province (Government of British Columbia, n/d-c). The province also issues water licenses and permits, monitors water quality, and ensures environmental standards compliance. Municipalities – of which there are seven on the Okanagan Lake – are responsible for managing water supply and distribution within their respective jurisdictions, providing safe drinking water, managing wastewater treatment and disposal, and promoting responsible water use (Porter & Barry, 2016). Regional districts (three in the Okanagan) also play an indirect role in water management through land use planning and development in geographical areas and unincorporated communities outside multiple municipalities (Government of British Columbia, n/d-b). Furthermore, the Okanagan has several irrigation and improvement districts that have authority over water and other services, particularly for agricultural and domestic purposes (Government of British Columbia, n/d-a). Indigenous peoples have been excluded from these formal water governance systems and decision-making structures in British Columbia (Porter & Barry, 2016; Simms et al., 2016). The Okanagan Basin Water Board (OBWB) is a central water structure in the Okanagan. Created by the three Okanagan regional districts in the late 1960s, it comprises a valley-wide partnership aimed at identifying and resolving critical water issues in the Okanagan watershed by supporting programs and activities to promote coordinated water management (OBWB, n.d.-e). In 2019, the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council, an advisory body to the OBWB, published the region-wide Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy Action Plan 2.0, aimed at tackling water-related challenges and encouraging sustainable water use (Okanagan Water Stewardship Council, 2019). The strategy notes the critical role of and need for Indigenous involvement in 71 water-related decision-making. In 2022, the three regional districts agreed to add a Syilx voting member on OBWB financial matters previously restricted to representatives of the three regional districts given that the OBWB is funded by a property tax levy (OBWB, 2022). 3.2.2.2 Syilx Water Governance 3.3 Indigenous peoples do not have formal water authority or jurisdiction in British Columbia’s colonial government structure despite having used and occupied the lands now known as Canada from time immemorial (Gullason, 2018; Simms, 2014). Europeans rationalized colonial sovereignty by invoking the concept of terra nullius, thereby dismissing the legitimacy of Indigenous land use and proclaiming their regions to be “unoccupied, vacant, and wasted” (Beaulieu, 2021; Miller, 2010). In 1909, the province introduced the Water Act, a prior allocation system in which water licenses were granted on a first-come, first-served basis, and established on the principles of natural resource exploitation and the suppression of the rights of Indigenous peoples (Gullason, 2018; Morellato, 2008). The recently approved 2016 Water Sustainability Act maintains the status quo of the original act and continues to assume provincial ownership of water and ignore Indigenous water rights (Gullason, 2018; Joe et al., 2017; Jollymore et al., 2018), despite the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia Supreme Court ruling that the doctrine of terra nullius never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the 1763 Royal Proclamation (Supreme Court of Canada, 2014). Enacting Indigenous law and exerting authority has been a response to colonial water governance that has failed to recognize First Nations’ rights (Curran, 2019). In 2014, the ONA endorsed the Syilx siwɬkw (Water) Declaration as an official statement of its water law. The declaration conceptualizes water as life and a relation, which bonds the Syilx people with its 72 descendants and land to be treated with reverence and respect (p. 1). It articulates the Syilx peoples’ responsibilities as stewards of their traditional lands and waters and the Nation’s commitment to protect and preserve water for future generations (pp. 1-2). Importantly, the declaration affirms Syilx water rights and jurisdiction over their territory: “The Syilx Nation governs our lands and siwɬkw. Any external process for any proposed use of siwɬkw or lands within our homelands must be premised on our unextinguished Syilx Aboriginal Title and Rights, which includes the right to decide how the lands, siwɬkw and resources of our Territory will be used. Any activities within and around our siwɬkw will be led by the Syilx Nation and carried out with the participation of Syilx Nation members in accordance with Syilx Laws, customs and practices.…..The provincial and federal governments do not have jurisdiction or ownership of lands and resources within Syilx Territory.” The Syilx siwɬkw (Water) Strategy followed the release of the siwɬkw (Water) Declaration in 2021 (ONA, 2021). The strategy asserts that the Syilx Okanagan peoples have inherent rights and responsibilities to care for siwɬkw and draws on traditional knowledge systems to guide their work. 3.4 Methods 3.4.1 Methodology Appreciating the historical context and the complex interplay of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations in the study area, we utilized grounded theory. This methodology is well-suited for capturing Indigenous voices and perspectives and contributing to Indigenous self-determination (Charmaz, 2006; Chilisa, 2019; Evans, 2017; Green et al., 2007; Kovach, 2009). 73 Grounded theory’s sensitivity to place and context enables detailed exploration of cultural values, power structures, and historical legacies (Chilisa, 2019; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). It aligns with Indigenous research principles that emphasize Indigenous paradigms, knowledge systems, cultural protocols, and values of respect, reciprocity, and relationality (Kovach, 2009; Steinhauer, 2002; Weber-Pillwax, 1999). Consistent with grounded theory, the research applies a two-eyed seeing approach, which is a metaphorical way of viewing a situation from two distinct vantage points simultaneously and capturing both Indigenous and Western knowledges and ‘ways of knowing’ in a balanced, respectful way (Bartlett et al., 2012). This framework, which is rooted in cultural diversity, allowed us to achieve a more comprehensive and nuanced grasp of the Syilx-non-Indigenous perspectives and complex problems and possible solutions related to water stewardship (Bartlett et al., 2012; Littlechild & Sutherland, 2021; Wright et al., 2019). 3.4.2 Data Sources, Collection and Analysis Our primary data source comprised semi-structured open-ended interviews with Syilx Knowledge Keepers, community members, and Western-trained experts on water-related issues. A total of 33 interviews and one focus group were conducted from 2019 to 2023, exploring topics such as water significance, ecosystem management, governance, and sustainability lessons. This interview format facilitated in-depth conversations, compatible with our cross-cultural approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The research was conducted under the University of British Columbia Okanagan project, Waterways, Past, Present and Future research project, 74 and followed its ethics protocols established in 2017 and approved by UBC’s Research Ethics Boards.8 Interviews were digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed and analyzed employing Atlas.ti software (https://atlasti.com) to manage and interpret the data. Our analysis began with identifying ethical space parameters in Syilx interviews, followed by formulating a coding framework around themes like Indigenous rights and traditional ecological knowledge.9 This framework was then applied to non-Indigenous data. Our analytical approach followed Braun & Clarke’s (2006) phased method for code and theme development, emphasizing reflection and iteration between stages (Nowell et al., 2017). Grounded theory was applied by referring back to relevant literature and qualitative observations during data collection and analysis (Heydarian, 2016), which aligns with Indigenous methodological principles that emphasize the relationship between the researcher(s) and the research. The latter is referred to as “self-in-relation” by Graveline (2000) and “researcher-in-relation” by Kovach (2009). Given epistemological differences in Indigenous and non-Indigenous research, flexibility was a priority during analysis, as was meeting trustworthiness criteria. To address potential biases, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation were conducted during data analysis. 8 UBC’s REBs meet all requisite criteria for an authorized research ethics board, pursuant to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2, 2014), the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (ICH-GCP) and the requirements of the US Department of Health and Human Services, as set out in the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45CFR Part 46, sub-part A. http://www.rise.ubc.ca/rise-modules 9 For the purpose of this paper, we define TEK as an evolving and intergenerational collection of knowledge, practices, and beliefs, intricately woven into the cultural fabric of a society, encapsulating the relationships and interactions of living beings, including humans, with each other and their environment, and shaped by specific worldviews and bioregions (Berkes, 2018). 75 3.4.3 Authors’ Positionality The paper was conceptualized and overseen by a team comprising non-Indigenous and Syilx members. It was drafted by a non-Indigenous researcher born in the Okanagan and with a 25-year international career in inclusion and diversity issues, including five years focused on the Syilx Okanagan territory. Given the topic of the paper, the team heavily relied on the valuable insights from our Syilx colleagues. Committed to a decolonizing approach, we prioritized Indigenous perspectives and maintaining ethical integrity, adhering to informed consent, and being mindful of power dynamics and cultural sensitivities. We recognize that this research took place on the traditional territory of the Syilx Okanagan Peoples, respecting their deep connection to the land and upholding principles of respect and ethical consideration throughout our work. 3.5 Findings Five overarching themes related to water stewardship in the Syilx Okanagan territory emerged from the analysis: Indigenous rights, governance, ontological and axiological dimensions of water, capacity building, and bridging and reconciliation. These themes, which are inherently interrelated, were first teased out from the responses of Syilx interviewees before being analyzed in relation to non-Indigenous interview data. In the presentation of findings that follows, we use direct quotations to reflect the richness of the interviews. 3.5.1 Indigenous Rights Building on the historical context of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations, a dominant theme that emerged is the centrality of Indigenous rights in water stewardship. Syilx interviewees emphasize their unceded and un-surrendered status and their constitutionally 76 asserted land rights, reinforced through the landmark Delgamuukw and Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court cases. One interviewee referenced the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III of England, which established the relationship between Indigenous peoples in Canada and the British Crown and emphasized its continued relevance in setting precedents for Indigenous land claims. Another Indigenous respondent remarked on the limited legal rights of federal and provincial governments in this context, stressing the critical role of Aboriginal rights in land and ecosystem protection: “People have to understand that you have very few rights or absolutely no rights as a Canadian citizen. To protect your lands, ecosystems, water, or whatever, you’re going to have to depend on the Aboriginal right, you’re going to have to hitchhike on the Aboriginal right to protect those resources.” Non-Indigenous interviewees, however, generally overlooked Indigenous sovereignty and historical context, focusing instead on the exclusion of the Syilx Nation from water governance and the value of Indigenous perspectives for sustainable water relationships. Some highlighted conflicts such as the province’s ‘first in time, first right’ policy, which disregards Indigenous water rights that predate European settlers. One respondent reflected on the profound implications of Indigenous rights, noting, “Canada is going to have to get on side with the settlement in BC [British Columbia] because the land issue is untenable…. our watersheds are a big part of unceded territory and that has to be dealt with by Canada.” Questions on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) legislation, which was enacted in British Columbia in November 2019, sparked varying reactions. While many non-Indigenous participants were only vaguely aware of the implications 77 of DRIPA, some recognized its potentially transformative impact: “[it] is really quite radical… most people don’t understand how radical it is and how much change it can engender.” Yet, skepticism on DRIPA implementation and genuine intent remains, as reflected by one water expert, “DRIPA was passed, what is it, in 2019? The province is very good at planning, thinking, and writing reports, and even passing useful good legislation. But sometimes I wonder… the province gets its authority delegated by the Feds, and it’s an imposed colonial system; their interest is in the status quo, really.” Syilx respondents, in contrast, expressed indifference to DRIPA given their existing inherent rights affirmed in the Canadian constitution. Rather than contributing to Indigenous agency, they see DRIPA as useful for giving agency to the government to engage differently with Indigenous nations. One Indigenous interviewee, however, commented that DRIPA allows her leverage in negotiations with the provincial government. Others expressed skepticism about the provincial government’s motives, as one Syilx respondent expressed, “Whenever we negotiate ourselves away from the Constitution, we weaken ourselves; we can’t get away from the Royal Proclamation.” DRIPA has led to further jurisdictional ambiguity and conflicting messages, as illustrated by an Okanagan-based logging company employee, “In a sense, there is a veto because, on the one hand, the government is saying we’re going to follow DRIPA. And they’re saying it’s unceded land. And their rights and title are not fully acknowledged, but kind of. And so that would give them veto. On the other hand, they’re saying no, they don’t have veto. And then they just say, ‘let’s figure it out.’ So, they sort of do have a veto. But not really.” 78 The narrative touches upon the complexities involved in actualizing Indigenous rights and highlights the gaps between constitutional assurances and real-life practices. 3.5.2 Governance The theme of Indigenous rights naturally leads to discussions on governance. Both Syilx and non-Indigenous participants acknowledged that current water governance and decision-making frameworks exclude the Syilx Nation, consistent with the literature on water governance in the province. Indigenous respondents were much more pointed, with one respondent referring to the negation of Indigenous people in water governance as “colonial political racism and discrimination.” Another noted was that the Syilx peoples’ influence is predominantly moral, leveraging their legal right to consultation to indirectly impact decision-making. Non-Indigenous interviewees acknowledge that governance structures unfairly exclude the Syilx Nation. However, most responses were tempered, noting that systems needed to change, and Syilx ‘participation’ was necessary. Terms like ‘including,’ ‘involving,’ or ‘integrating’ the Syilx Nation dominated non-Syilx responses on future governance systems, in contrast to Syilx respondents who called for a transformative shift and the creation of new institutions. A few non-Indigenous interviewees agreed, with one noting, “we can’t put our colonial lens on it… our structure is colonial, which doesn’t work for First Nations; that’s not how they function.” Another went further, arguing that we need to: “create a whole new institution, where Indigenous communities are in a leadership position, or rewrite the legislation to make that happen.” Technical experts working with the Syilx community expressed the strongest views on the need for change. The overwhelming reaction, however, was a lack of clarity, 79 “I think we’re on the path now towards consolidating some of this [Indigenous] governance under a model… I’m not sure what that model is going to look like.” The unique role of the OBWB in coordinating water programming across municipal and regional boundaries was universally acknowledged. However, it was viewed less favorably by Syilx interviewees due to the board’s minimal Syilx representation (one of 12 board members). Both Syilx and non-Indigenous participants recognized OBWB as a colonial construct, with non-Indigenous respondents acknowledging that it is “not working for the Syilx Nation,” and “hobbled by the fact that it cannot legally recognize Indigenous rights in this valley to water and make it part of their platform.” Syilx respondents noted, however, that because OBWB continues to play an important technical and coordination function on water, enhancing Syilx voices, leadership, and technical expertise and shifting the power balance was essential. In the long term, Syilx respondents emphasized the need to develop a new set of governance structures that recognize the inherent rights and leadership of the Syilx Nation. One interviewee underscored the need to “detangle the federal and provincial legal systems to make space for Syilx laws,” acknowledging that this process would be protracted, likely extending beyond her lifetime. She referred to the historic 2014 Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Title Supreme Court case as a potential blueprint for other First Nations. However, she highlighted the ongoing, complex process of disentangling provincial and federal legal systems that ensued following the court’s ruling. 3.5.3 Ontological and Axiological Dimensions of Water Underpinning the governance discussions and consistent with the literature, views on water governance from Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities reveal distinct conceptual 80 (ontological) and value-based (axiological) differences. Syilx Indigenous people view water through a deeply spiritual lens, intertwined with their existence. An interviewee, echoing their elders, stated, “water is sacred, and it’s second only to the Creator.” Interviewees discuss their roles as caretakers of their lands and water and their foundational belief that this obligation is central to their identity as Syilx Okanagan peoples. These protocols emphasize stewardship and a respectful and reciprocal relationship with interconnected humans, non-human beings, and the natural world. This perspective extends to ceremonial and prayer practices, blending spiritual and technical governance and transcending the physical properties of water. As one interviewee highlighted: “Within our stories and customary practices, ceremonies, and rites of passage, values are connected through water; there’s a whole different understanding that comes into play for us as Indigenous peoples… we have the obligation and responsibility to protect that water.” Conversely, non-Indigenous perspectives often reflect on human-centric values focused on water quality and quantity and their effect on human activities, such as tourism, development, agriculture, and economic dimensions. However, some non-Indigenous participants recognize water as an integral part of a broader ecosystem that includes humans, plants, animals, and spiritual entities. They also acknowledge the need to learn from Syilx peoples, emphasizing their approach to water sustainability that looks ahead to seven generations: “The time horizon that indigenous people live within, isn’t for years.…it’s forever, or seven generations as we say, but then it’s really forever because it’s all about long-term sustainability. And that contrasts sharply with the short-term political cycles in our governments.” 81 Conventional Western water values were critiqued by Syilx interviewees, noting that Western systems tend to ‘commodify’ water and treat it as an economic asset to be bought, sold, and traded. In stark contrast to Syilx practices that regard water as a ‘relative,’ as articulated in the Syilx Water Declaration. This difference in approach was also noted by a non-Syilx respondent: “[It is] a different philosophy. It’s not so much to generate revenue but to be good stewards of the land. And so, a lot of the times when they’re doing their operations, they’re not making any money or sometimes even losing money, but they still go ahead with it because it’s good management.” Overall, the excerpts suggest a tension between these ontological and axiological perspectives, reflecting the ongoing struggle to balance different values and ways of being in relation to water governance and stewardship. 3.5.4 Capacity Building Effective governance and the application of Indigenous rights are deeply influenced by capacity. Both Syilx and non-Indigenous participants recognize capacity as a barrier to water stewardship and ecosystem health. Syilx respondents stressed a significant gap in cultural understanding on the part of the non-Indigenous community, underlining the need for the non-Indigenous community to actively prepare for respectful engagement with Indigenous peoples. They contend that government staff need to grasp the historical context of colonization and its persistent effects on reconciliation, as well as respect Indigenous rights, laws, and legal traditions within governance structures. The absence of culturally appropriate government counterparts, 82 they argue, means that Indigenous individuals are often expected to educate their non-Indigenous colleagues. Non-Indigenous respondents acknowledge challenges in collaborating with the Syilx community, attributing these to the community’s extensive commitments and limited resources. The point was also reinforced by Syilx interviewees, for example: “When I worked at ONA, I remember being in the library and seeing boxes filled to the roof of just consultation letters…. we just don’t have the time and resources to respond to these letters.” Traditional knowledge was another cited capacity issue, with non-Indigenous participants stressing their need to learn and understand Syilx knowledge systems. One non-Indigenous interviewee went as far as saying that he “craved” the opportunity to sit and learn from elders and apply this knowledge in his day-to-day work. Syilx respondents highlighted the need to increase the number of fluent language speakers and proficiency in nsyilxcən, their language, which they described as a repository of knowledge integral to decoding Syilx water laws and preserving cultural identity. The revival of ceremonies was also emphasized, which fosters connections with water, plants, and animals and Syilx’s cultural identity. A recurring theme in the discussions with Syilx respondents was the importance of empowering young people. Several mentioned the need to develop legal skills to navigate Western systems effectively. Without this capability, they expressed concern that the Syilx community could be easily overwhelmed by legal jargon and persuaded into agreements that don’t align with their best interests when it comes to land rights and self-determination. Syilx respondents highlighted the complexities of Syilx internal governance and agency, with colonialism leading to a mix of traditional and contemporary colonially imposed 83 governance structures and strained band-ONA relationships. Syilx participants spoke of the need to revive traditional decision-making protocols and reconsider current approaches to accountability. They stressed the need for honest dialogues about the legitimacy and authority of the current colonially imposed structures and for rebuilding Syilx community capacity from the impacts of colonialism: “If you’re going to properly govern water... in a good way, in a healthy way, you would need healthy [Syilx] communities to do that.” They also alluded to the complex interplay of power, recognition, and resources within Indigenous organizations and criticized what they perceived as a colonized mindset that has infiltrated the Syilx community and its focus on financial gains: “What goes around comes around… breaking our own laws…. yet we participated for that almighty loonie. And here we are today, we’re still chasing that almighty loonie to the detriment of the environment.” Comments underscore the importance of capacity within both the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities, emphasizing internal strengthening within the Syilx Nation and fostering cultural understanding and appreciation of Indigenous knowledge in the non-Indigenous community. 3.5.5 Bridging and Reconciliation Syilx-non-Indigenous capacity gaps raise the intricacies of relationship bridging and the journey of reconciliation between communities. Recalling the historical roots of the nation, a Syilx interviewee underscored the original relationship between First Nations with the Crown as ‘allies,’ which should be the ongoing basis for water stewardship. Strengthening alliances is 84 considered particularly urgent in the face of climate change, with one Syilx participant noting, “All colors of man [humankind] are going to have to work together.” Non-Indigenous participants, particularly at the municipal level, expressed a keen interest in building and bridging relationships with Syilx communities. Several mayors shared their challenges in engaging with local bands, noting that Indigenous bands wished to deal with the Government of Canada on a nation-to-nation basis, as appropriate for a sovereign Indigenous nation. However, the possibility of co-management was presented as a viable path, exemplified by the successful 25-year tripartite arrangement between provincial, federal, and Syilx governments in the restoration of sockeye salmon populations in the Okanagan. Bridging relationships through research co-creation and co-implementation and community-based watershed groups were other cited examples of effective approaches. Syilx respondents expressed sentiments of indifference and disillusionment in regard to Canada’s reconciliation process. They view the growing awareness of historical injustices among Canadians as positive; however, it is considered merely a starting point in a very lengthy and uncomfortable process. One interviewee recalled the words of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: “Reconciliation is not for the faint-hearted. If you don’t feel utterly uncomfortable, and I emphasize this to government officials repeatedly, if you’re not experiencing discomfort in the work you’re doing, you’re not doing it right. Reconciliation should take you to a place of profound unease.” This alluded discomfort arises from questioning personal privileges and the structures that perpetuate past injustices; being too comfortable suggests that systems are still favoring certain groups. For the Syilx community, reconciliation is about acknowledging and coming to terms with the trauma of colonialism, which is still very much alive and often unspoken. Syilx 85 respondents described the fear of incarceration for speaking their language and the enduring pain and loss, which has impacted their identity. These reflections were echoed by a non-Indigenous interviewee who recognized the lasting effects of trauma on Indigenous communities and its impact on intra-community relations: “I think that a lot of that comes from, or some of it anyways, from the trauma. And we know that it’s intergenerational trauma. You’ve probably heard people say, ‘Why can’t we just get over it? You know, this is a long time ago.’ Well, sorry, it wasn’t a long time ago. It’s yesterday, right?” Syilx participants also highlighted reconciliation as an essential internal process within their own community, which involves difficult conversations about the interplay of traditional values, colonial influences, and contemporary challenges on governance, power, and accountability. Fear of change within both communities, especially concerns among the non-Indigenous about losses they might face, was also noted. This, despite Canada’s vast unoccupied lands, the potential for sharing and coexistence, and the inconsistency with Syilx values: “There’s a huge fear when it comes to Aboriginal rights and titles... but that’s not what would happen – that’s just not our ways – but it does mean detangling the federal and the provincial legal systems to make space for Syilx laws.” Among non-Syilx participants, references to reconciliation were infrequent, with only a few recognizing the truth-telling inherent in the journey: “That’s what DRIPA is all about… reconciliation…and the truth that needs to come before the reconciliation part. But we’re learning the truth, like it or not, we’re learning from the ugly truth”. 86 These narratives highlight the imperative for both non-Indigenous and Syilx communities to actively participate in bridging activities while at the same time recognizing the inherent difficulties, discomfort, and challenges. 3.6 Discussion This study set out to unveil and examine the collective positionalities of Syilx and non-Indigenous communities on water stewardship in the Okanagan. The data uncovers both convergences and divergences in views, which are rooted in historical, legal, and cultural contexts. Differences identified underscore the complexities and potential hurdles faced by Syilx and non-Indigenous communities in addressing water security and sustainability issues while at the same time suggesting ethical space pathways for cross-cultural collaboration and dialogue. 3.6.1 Divergences and Convergences The primary divergences revolve around Indigenous rights and governance. Syilx interviewees emphasize their unceded and un-surrendered status, viewing their rights as fundamental to water governance, a stance consistent with the literature that identifies self-determination as the basis of Indigenous environmental governance. Syilx perspectives stem from the 1793 Royal Proclamation, which established the Indigenous allied relationship with the British Crown, and the 1982 Constitution, which affirmed their Indigenous rights. In contrast, non-Indigenous interviewees tended to side-step Indigenous rights, focusing instead on the deficiencies of existing governance structures that exclude the Syilx Nation, without recognizing the historical injustices embedded in these constructs. There is also a notable divergence in approaches to addressing these issues: Syilx respondents call for a transformative shift towards Indigenous-led governance, acknowledging the extended timeline this requires, while non-87 Indigenous participants seem hesitant or are unable to reimagine new institutional structures. Furthermore, divergences in water stewardship are rooted in ontological and axiological differences, with Syilx Indigenous peoples viewing water as a sacred ‘relative’ deserving respect and protection, in stark contrast to the Western notion of water as a predominantly human-centric and economically driven ‘resource.’ This, again, is consistent with the literature on diverging water values and their effect on governance and ecological health. Despite these divergences, there are notable convergences in views on water stewardship. Both communities recognize the shortcomings of current governance structures that exclude the Syilx Nation, as well as the need for change. The Syilx community’s deep connection with water also emerges as a point of agreement. Both groups acknowledge the critical role of collaboration in water governance, with co-management cited as a potential model and climate change identified as a key driver for transcending institutional barriers. Capacity building is another convergent theme, with both sides recognizing its importance for effective governance and decision-making. There is a consensus on the need to address capacity challenges within Indigenous communities, given the unrealistic external demands placed on them. Syilx respondents highlight the need to balance traditional governance methods with contemporary, colonially imposed systems and to build resilient communities affected by colonialism. For the non-Indigenous, there is a pressing need to develop cultural competency and intensify reconciliation processes that acknowledge past injustices and challenge existing colonial structures. These processes implicitly involve an uncomfortable examination of privilege and power and taking collective responsibility for historical wrongs. In the realm of governance, despite contrasting views, there are hints of opportunity to create new institutions that bridge the positionalities of Syilx and non-Indigenous participants. 88 3.6.2 Implications for Ethical Spaces of Engagement In his seminal work, Willie Ermine (2007) introduces ethical space as the physical and psychological space created when two societies with incongruent worldviews engage one another, emphasizing the hidden thoughts, interests, and assumptions that control behaviors and can unconsciously result in clashes. Ermine further argues that ethical space, at the juncture of these convergences between disparate systems, can “become a refuge of possibilities in cross-cultural relations” (p. 203), offering a “venue to step out of our allegiances, to detach from the cages of our mental worlds and assume a position where human-to-human dialogue” (p. 202). He adds that this will have the potential effect of “shifting the status quo of an asymmetrical social order to a partnership model between world communities” (p. 203). The analysis presented here, therefore, by uncovering the deeply rooted issues related to water stewardship – polarized water values, water rights, the imperative for Indigenous-led governance, colonial legacies of racism, and feelings of discomfort, fear, and uncertainty – sets the stage for this new Syilx non-Indigenous partnership model in the Okanagan. Our findings suggest that ethical space engagements can be challenging and demanding, given social, political, and economic realities and the ethical, moral, and legal principles that emerge in the process. This is consistent with the literature (Ermine, 2007; D. McGregor, 2014b; Nadeau, 2022; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022; Osmond-Johnson & Turner, 2020). However, the undeniable urgency of water sustainability and security persists, and thus new frameworks and paradigms, such as ethical space, should be applied to facilitate Indigenous-West cross-cultural encounters and reconcile worldviews and traditions. At the higher level, this means translating the implications of inherent Aboriginal rights with the cooperation of Indigenous and Western institutions. In turn, this implies committing resources to Indigenous communities to facilitate 89 their own reconciliation processes and internal governance systems and building their competencies to navigate Western legal systems. As Ermine (2007) notes, cultivating the Aboriginal knowledge base is a pre-condition to detail how rights will be accommodated and establishes a level playing field for Indigenous-West relations. At all levels, from the national to the local, and in diverse settings, investing in ethical space engagements is a policy priority. The creation of these spaces represents our best chance at creating new partnership models and building cross-cultural capacity to steward water. 3.7 Conclusion This study exposes the interplay between Syilx and non-Indigenous perspectives, revealing a complex water stewardship landscape deeply influenced by perceptions of Indigenous rights and governance and cultural understandings of water. A shared recognition of water governance shortcomings, the need to build cultural competencies among the non-Indigenous populations, and a shared sense of urgency to work as allies on water and climate change-related issues also emerged. These narratives underscore the challenges of forming ethical spaces of engagement, given inherent ethical, moral, and legal implications and the political, economic, and social context while highlighting the imperative of creating these neutral dialogic zones of cross-cultural understanding and collaboration. While centered on the Syilx Okanagan territory, insights here have wider relevance, offering lessons for other Indigenous-Western exchanges and fora. Future research should focus on investigating the practical applications of ethical space engagement across institutional and organizational settings, as well as the role of policy in supporting ethical spaces and its implications for Indigenous-Western relations. Finally, our research underscores the need for 90 policies aimed at supporting ethical spaces at different scales with a view to forging new Indigenous-Western partnership models with the collective capacity to address the pressing social-ecological challenges of our time. 91 Chapter 4: Indigenizing collaborative methods in studying human-water relations in the Syilx Okanagan Territory of British Columbia, Canada (Manuscript 3) Abstract This article describes co-design and Indigenous methodologies applied in Waterways, Past, Present and Future, a research inquiry and immersive media exhibition on human water relations carried out in the Syilx Okanagan First Nation territory of British Columbia, Canada. As a backdrop, we provide an overview of collaborative research, co-design, and Indigenous methodologies principles and then describe how these edicts were reflected in Waterway’s praxis. The co-leadership of the research team, the cross-cultural interdisciplinary composition of the team, the decolonizing frame applied throughout the inquiry and design process, and the timeframe for team members to carry out personalized and collective multi-layered preparation were key ingredients in the application of Indigenous methodologies. Co-design principles observed in Waterways included prioritizing design justice and incorporating reflexivity and flexibility, iteration, and emergence in the design process. These methodological considerations can lead to more impactful co-design and cross-cultural research collaboration in Indigenous settings, which is currently a priority in Canada’s ongoing reconciliation process. 4.1 Introduction Many of today’s complex societal problems transcend the capacity of any single entity to resolve, thereby demanding collaboration across organizational, sectoral, and jurisdictional boundaries. The COVID-19 pandemic and the extraordinary efforts to develop a vaccine illustrate how cross-sector collaboration can achieve successful and consequential outcomes. 92 Climate change, poverty, and migration are other examples of global issues that require collective actions. The complexity and wicked nature of these issues and their physical, political, economic, and cultural interdependencies mean that multiple actors must pool competencies and resources to find and implement solutions (Ansell & Gash, 2008; IPCC, 2021; Wood & Gray, 1991). The academic literature on collaboration is broad and multidisciplinary, drawing from fields such as organizational psychology, sociology, management, and communication, among others (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Huxham, 2003; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Sawyer, 2017). Collaboration in research, including the use of participatory design and related practices, has gained legitimacy and is increasingly employed as a strategy of inquiry in the academic sphere (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Cummings & Kiesler, 2005). The need for interdisciplinary approaches to collaboration is also widely acknowledged in academia, albeit often challenging to implement in practice (Julie Thompson Klein, 2010; Robinson, 2008; Stokols et al., 2008). In 2017, a group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and community partners came together to explore the fragile relationship between people and water in the traditional territory of the Syilx Okanagan First Nation, located in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The four-year collaborative research project, titled Waterways, the Past, Present and Future, aimed to promote sustainable water practices in one of the most water-stressed regions of Canada through an interactive, immersive museum exhibition that exposed the public to diverse values, worldviews, and perspectives on water. Ultimately, Waterways sought to foster cross-cultural engagement and create a space for identifying common ground on water stewardship across cultures (see Dulic et al., 2023 for a full description of Waterways). 93 In this paper, we examine the collaborative methodologies applied in Waterways, with the goal of understanding how to facilitate cross-cultural research collaboration in a real-world Indigenous context. The paper comprises two main parts. The first provides an overview of Western-oriented collaborative research methods, including co-design and design justice alongside Indigenous research methodologies. The second section examines how these methods and methodological principles were manifested in the Waterways research and museum installation. We follow with the discussion and conclusions sections. Throughout the paper, the term Okanagan refers to the name of the Syilx Okanagan people and to the geographic location (valley, lake, river) of Syilx traditional lands. The word Indigenous is defined here as the “profoundly undisruptive association with one place that was developed over many millennia by a people who shared that place as member of its flora and fauna” (J. Armstrong, 2010, pp. 85-86). Indigenizing in this context is defined as “the process of bringing Indigenous worldviews, values, and practices into the design, conduct, and dissemination of research” and involves a commitment to ethical relationships with Indigenous communities and recognition of the ongoing impacts of colonization (Kovach, 2010, p. 22). In Canada, the word ‘Indigenous’ encompasses First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples (Indigenous Foundations, 2009). The term ‘First Nation’ refers to Aboriginal peoples of Canada who are ethnically neither Métis nor Inuit, whereas ‘Aboriginal’ is a term applied when referring to the first inhabitants of Canada, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. These terms are capitalized in accordance with guidelines for writing about Indigenous Peoples (Younging & Ebscohost, 2018). 94 4.2 Western Methodologies 4.2.1 Collaborative Research The scholarly literature on collaboration is vast and reaches into several fields. In management and administration, early writing on collaboration focused on dynamic processes in complex organizational and institutional settings (Holley et al., 2012). One of the most cited scholars on the topic, Barbara Gray, defines collaboration as the pooling of tangible and intangible resources by multiple individuals or groups to solve a set of problems that neither can solve on an individual basis (Barbara Gray, 1985). Gray sets out a process model for collaboration that includes three phases – problem-setting, direction-setting, and structuring – and proposes conditions for achieving collaboration based on organization theory, policy analysis, and organizational development. In Gray’s (1989) comprehensive overview of collaboration in the context of multiparty problems, she notes the following considerations: the complexity of groups and individuals involved and the manner in which these entities change and their proximity; the interdependence of these groups and individuals and the power dynamics between them; the perceived legitimacy of collaboration and the characteristics of the conveners; and historical power relations, including trust. In the environmental realm, collaboration and multi-actor collaboration is seen as imperative for building social-ecological resilience and adaptive capacity (Armitage et al., 2007; Berkes, 2009a; C. Folke et al., 2005), as well as addressing the inherent political, jurisdictional, and cross-cultural characteristics of social-ecological systems (Örjan Bodin, 2017). Diverse groups and individuals can bring unique knowledge and understandings gained through experience with different aspects of the system at distinct spatial and temporal scales (Berkes, 95 2004; Manfredo et al., 2014; C. Prell et al., 2009; Mark S. Reed, 2008). Cooperative, collaborative, and collective action is seen as an approach to deal with common-pool resources under specific circumstances and contexts (E. Ostrom, 1990) such as forests, watersheds, fisheries, and protected areas, which often include Indigenous groups (Castro & Nielsen, 2001). Collaboration in research has been defined as an inquiry that involves participants in a situation under examination, with mutual learning taking place between researchers and participants (Müller et al., 2012). Collaborative research is a powerful and deep tradition of inquiry, with theorists and practitioners such as John Dewey, Paolo Freire, Raymond Williams, and Donna Haraway providing important philosophical underpinnings (Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018). Haraway (2020) explores the concept of ‘situated knowledges,’ which highlights the social, political, and historical context in which knowledge is produced. She argues that collaborative and interdisciplinary research is essential for developing more nuanced and accurate understandings of complex issues. Theorists and practitioners John Dewey, Paolo Freire, and Raymond Williams contributed to this research tradition by emphasizing collaboration in education and cultural analysis; they recognized that learning and culture were social processes that required the active participation of multiple actors, and advocated for a more democratic and inclusive approach to research and education (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 2020; R. Williams, 1980). Collaboration in academia across disciplines and boundaries has become widely accepted and increasingly commonplace given the complexity of today’s societal problems, which demand innovative solutions that pool knowledge across scientific disciplines (Robinson, 2008; Stokols et al., 2008; van Rijnsoever & Hessels, 2011). Inter-, multi- and transdisciplinarity offers the potential to combine knowledge from reductionist disciplines and gain a more holistic 96 understanding of complex issues. From a practical standpoint, working across disciplines can help identify workable solutions based on recognizable behavioral patterns while also considering the intricate nature of the problem at hand (Newell & Meek, 2003). Challenges to conducting research across disciplines persist, however, for several reasons. These include communication and language barriers (Hackett et al., 2008; Julie T Klein, 2008); different assumptions, values, and goals, which can make it challenging to find common ground (Bergmann et al., 2012; Julie T Klein, 2008); institutional barriers, including access to funding (Bergmann et al., 2012; Robinson, 2008; Stokols et al., 2008); and distinct theoretical assumptions and methodological orientations (Huutoniemi et al., 2010; Stokols, 2006). Biophysical sciences, for example, gravitate to quantitative research compared to social sciences, which apply both quantitative and qualitative and interpretive validation approaches (Brown et al., 2015; Pohl, 2005). The nuanced distinctions between interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity are pertinent when engaging across Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems, which are inherently boundary-crossing (Moewaka Barnes et al., 2021; S. Wilson, 2008). Interdisciplinarity involves the fusion of knowledge and methodologies from diverse disciplines to address shared issues, enabling the synthesis of approaches that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue in question (Huutoniemi et al., 2010; Julie Thompson Klein, 2010). A biologist, for example, could be collaborating with an Indigenous community to comprehend local ecological knowledge. Multidisciplinarity, on the other hand, involves juxtaposing different disciplinary perspectives side by side to address specific issues without necessarily integrating them (Julie Thompson Klein, 2010). In an Indigenous context, this may encompass a comparative examination of Western and Indigenous knowledge systems, 97 acknowledging their distinct yet complementary nature (Houde, 2007; N. J. Turner et al., 2000). Transdisciplinarity takes collaboration a step further. It aims to transcend individual disciplines entirely and promote knowledge co-creation relevant to both scientific and societal challenges (Julie T Klein, 2008). These include wicked problems that are characterized by high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and value conflicts (Harris et al., 2010). It entails integrating various types of knowledge from different disciplines and stakeholders and applying this knowledge collaboratively to real-world issues (Bergmann et al., 2012; Jahn et al., 2012). In the context of Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems, transdisciplinarity often involves partnerships among Western scientists, Indigenous elders, community members, and policymakers (Christie, 2006; Harris et al., 2010; Julie Thompson Klein, 2004). Establishing external alliances through transdisciplinarity builds understanding through multiple ways of knowing and doing and embraces complexity through connection (Robinson, 2008). 4.2.2 Participatory Research Participatory research is a collaborative approach commonly used by scholars and practitioners across the behavioral and social sciences (Kindon et al., 2007; McIntyre, 2007; Schubotz, 2020). Participation is considered an orientation to inquiry and, thus, a methodology (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Bradbury-Huang, 2015). Broadly defined, participatory research is a practice undertaken with rather than on people (Schubotz, 2020). Agency, representation, and power lie at the core of the participatory inquiry (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Participatory research requires a high degree of self-reflexivity and reflection on the situated engagement, given that participants bring their views and perspectives into knowledge generation. To reach a consensus or mutual agreement, all participants, including the researchers, must, to some extent, 98 disclose and create common ground for their epistemological foundations, thus requiring researchers to acknowledge their role as the instrument of the inquiry (Bergold & Thomas, 2012). Participatory research covers a range of approaches, with methods often drawn from conventional and mainstream practices that involve different levels of engagement (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Vaughn and Jacquez (2020) review 27 frameworks, orientations and approaches to participatory research and find that these share the common goals of achieving real-world impact and generating knowledge. They also identify five ‘choice points’ in research where decisions on the degree of participation are made. These, in turn, guide the selection of methods and tools to use in the inquiry. The choices are (1) inform (information is provided to the community), (2) consult (input is obtained from the community), (3) involve (researchers work directly with the community), (4) collaborate (community is a partner in research) and (5) empower (community leads research in decision-making). Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation, a common reference point both in research and in practice, identifies eight rungs on a metaphorical ladder, which range from the lowest level (passive dissemination of information) to the highest level (citizen control of the process). Several challenges are associated with participatory research. Power dynamics can be an issue, for example, as community members may feel intimidated or less knowledgeable than researchers, which can affect the quality of their participation (Hacker, 2013; Wallerstein et al., 2019). Participants also need a safe space to speak freely and comfortably to express their opinions and views, which can be a major impediment in communities that have faced historical marginalization, including Indigenous communities (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Cargo & Mercer, 2008). Delineating the community that is meant to participate is a further challenge: who is the 99 community, who should be included, and who should not, which individuals or groups should or must participate (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Hacker, 2013). In contrast to conventional research, where the interaction is neutral, the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the community or individuals partaking in the inquiry has come into question in the participatory research approach (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Wallerstein & Duran, 2008). 4.2.3 Co-design Co-design, also known as participatory design, is a form of collaborative research that involves active collaboration between researchers and participants throughout the research process. Zamenopoulos and Alexiou (2018) define co-design as a process in which individuals come together to conceptually develop and create something that responds to issues of concern, despite or because of their distinct needs, skills, and knowledge. A basic premise of co-design is designing with the people, based on their interests. instead of designing for the people (Burkett, 2012). Co-design is related to the concept of co-creation, in that collective creativity is applied across the design spectrum (L. Sanders & Simons, 2009). Co-design has broad applications, having been used both in designing material goods and products and in improving services, including social services (E. B.-N. Sanders et al., 2018). In academic inquiry, co-design may include researchers, practitioners, and community members who are involved throughout the design process, from problem definition to the production process to the finished artifact or solution (Hedditch & Vyas, 2023). Co-design research principles include equity and respect, to account for any power imbalances and differences in values, knowledge, and expertise; flexibility to accommodate the perspectives and priorities of participants; iteration, to ensure continuous feedback, learning, adjustment, and 100 relevance; and empowerment, to create a sense of ownership of the design and the possibility of meaningful change (Cantu & Selloni, 2013; Lilley, 2009; E. B.-N. Sanders & Stappers, 2008, 2014; Stein, 2022). Communication, synchronicity, coordination, reflectivity, knowledge creation and integration, and shared understanding of content and process are all important features of co-design (Tessier & Mithra, 2019), as are risk-taking and consensus-building given its collective nature (Kvan, 2000). Design solutions may include tangible products, systems, and infrastructures or intangibles such as processes, strategies, and policies (Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018). 4.2.4 Co-design as Reflective Practice Co-design is rooted in the practice of reflection-in-action (Schön, 2017), where the ‘reflective practitioner’ inquiries into the real-world design situation and simultaneously integrates reflection, action, and implementation (Dulic et al., 2016). This concept builds from a pragmatist orientation to common sense, practical knowing, and the facts of experience (Dewey, 1934; Dulic et al., 2016; James, 1907; Peirce, 1991). The reflective practitioner conducts an artful inquiry into situations of uncertainty, which enables the discovery of contextual knowledge critical for culturally specific products and technologies (Dieleman, 2012). The ‘contextual rationality’ of the reflective practitioner enables representations of the community within design solutions (Schön, 2017). Co-design is understood to be interactive and experiential (Wakkary, 2009) and therefore encompasses the complex relationship between designers, the known and lived world, and design actions. This concept, also known as experimentation-in-action, shapes the processes and goals through framing and reframing a problem as a way of working towards the best design solution 101 (Gedenryd, 1998; Schön, 1983). Experience is understood as the actions humans do in the world that hold value and are conceptually meaningful (Alexander & Dewey, 1987). The influential American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer John Dewey (1934) situates learning through concrete lived experience within the context of being involved in a temporal, open-ended physical world. Experiences, situations, and nature are understood as continuous and qualitative, beginning and ending in a larger world of immediate experience rather than only in a reflective space. Furthermore, aesthetic experiences allow possible meanings and values to emerge in situations that are relational and contextual. Acquiring empirical knowledge through engagement and experience reveals contextual and situated meaning, thus bringing together ways of knowing through experience that unite heart and mind, affect and cognition, art, and science, rather than keeping them in opposition (Dewey, 1934). 4.2.5 Design Justice A general critique of conventional design is that it privileges dominant cultures. Costanza-Chock (2020) argues for ‘design justice,’ which fundamentally implies that marginalized communities lead the process for which the design is intended. Design justice explores the relationship between design, power, and social justice. According to Costanza-Chock, design justice is a practice and philosophy in which all participants are considered to be experts with unique and invaluable contributions. It recognizes that there are multiple ways of bringing knowledge and skills to the design process, including technical and professional skills and lived experience. Designers, in turn, play the role of facilitators rather than experts in framing solutions and bringing technical and evidence-based knowledge for ongoing learning and adaptation. Other key elements of this practice include using design to heal and empower 102 communities and seek liberation from exploitative and oppressive systems, bringing diverse ways of knowing to create sustainable community-centred nonexploitative and ecologically-grounded solutions, bringing to the design process the voices of those who are most impacted by the design, honoring traditional, Indigenous and local knowledge and practices, prioritizing design impact on the community over the intention of the designer, and focusing on both process and product (Costanza-Chock, 2020). Since design is present in virtually every industry and affects societal structures, design justice concepts help us to understand the interplay between design, power, and social outcomes and reflect on how to avoid reinforcing and reproducing societal and structural inequalities. 4.3 Indigenous Methodologies ‘The word itself “research” is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary. When mentioned in many indigenous contexts, it stirs up silence, it conjures up bad memories, it raises a smile that is knowing and distrustful.’ ¾ Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) Smith’s (2012) influential publication on decolonizing methodologies provides a cautionary note and a reminder of the complexity and sensitivities of conducting research in an Indigenous context. Indigenous scholars researching and writing on research methodologies provide invaluable guidance on how engagement with Indigenous communities should take place. They point to important principles such as taking an Indigenous ‘paradigmatic perspective,’ acknowledging Indigenous knowledge systems, adopting a decolonizing lens in the inquiry, considering who should conduct the research and/or engage with the Indigenous community, and 103 ensuring researchers understand the cultural protocols, values, and beliefs of the respective Indigenous group. This section elaborates on these points based on the writings of these scholars. 4.3.1 A Paradigmatic Approach One of the resounding themes from scholarly writings on methodologies for engaging the Indigenous community is understanding the (research) paradigm. A research paradigm is broadly defined by Shawn Wilson (2001, p. 175) as ‘a set of beliefs about the world and about gaining knowledge that goes together to guide your actions as to how you’re going to go about doing your research,’ the four main elements of which are: ontology, a belief in the nature of reality, ‘your way of being, what you believe is real in the world’; epistemology, ‘how you think about that reality’; methodology, ‘how you are going to use your ways of thinking (your epistemology) to gain more knowledge about your reality’; and axiology, ‘a set of morals or set of ethics.’ Kovach (2010) notes that applying a paradigmatic approach means that the research flows from an Indigenous belief system and has at its core a relational understanding and accountability to the world. Comparing Indigenous paradigms to Western ones, Wilson (2001) explains that dominant Western paradigms are built on the premise that the researcher is an individual searching for knowledge: knowledge is something that is gained, and thus, knowledge cannot be owned by an individual. This way of thinking contrasts with an Indigenous paradigm and the fundamental belief that knowledge is relational and shared with all creation and community: ‘it is with the cosmos, it is with the animals, with the plants, with the earth’ (S. Wilson, 2001, pp. 176,177). Kovach (2010) suggests that Indigenous paradigms reflect diverse Indigenous epistemologies, embodying a relational philosophy that is not human-centric. 104 4.3.2 Indigenous Knowledge(s) Understanding the nature of Indigenous knowledge, which is unique to given cultures, localities, and societies and is acquired by Indigenous peoples through daily experience, is an important element of Indigenous methodologies and engagement (Steinhauer, 2002). Indigenous knowledge is defined as ‘the people’s cognitive and wise legacy as a result of their interaction with nature in a common territory’ (1999, p. 62), as local, holistic, and oral (Castellano, 2000) and as personal, oral, holistic and experiential (Hart, 2010). ‘Ways of Knowing’ are part of Indigenous knowledge systems, beyond the facts and information taught and learned (K. Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003). Kovach (2010) refers to Indigenous knowledge as plural, that is, knowledge(s), and asserts that it is a specific ‘way of knowing’ based on oral tradition for sharing knowledge. She also maintains that story is central to Indigenous knowledge and methodology, noting the ‘inseparable relationship between story and knowing’ (p.94). ‘The interrelationship between story and knowing cannot be traced back to any specific starting time within tribal societies, for they have been tightly bound since time immemorial as a legitimate form for understanding’ (p. 95). Steinhauer (2002) states that Indigenous knowledge comes from multiple sources, including traditional teachings, family knowledge, empirical observation, and revealed knowledge through dreams, visions, cellular memory, and intuition. 4.3.3 Decolonizing Research Indigenous research often includes or should include a decolonizing frame (Chilisa, 2017; Coombes et al., 2014; Kovach, 2010, 2021; Lavallée, 2009; S. Wilson, 2001). Smith’s pivotal book on the subject, originally published in 1999, challenges traditional Western approaches to research, calling for the ‘decolonization’ of methodologies and a new agenda of Indigenous 105 research (L. T. Smith, 2012). Decolonization in this context is about critically analyzing and questioning the underlying assumptions, motivations, and values that inform research practices (L. T. Smith, 2012). Chilisa (2017), in writing on the African Indigenous context, argues that methodologies rooted in African philosophies, worldviews, and history, bring alternative ways of conducting research to the academic discourse. Such methodologies question academic and methodological imperialism and highlight problem and solution-driven research agendas. Kovach (2021) notes that decolonizing perspectives and Indigenous epistemologies emerge from different paradigms. She explains that an Indigenous paradigm is centered on Indigenous knowledge(s), whereas the decolonization of methodologies is a critical theory found within the transformative paradigm of Western tradition. An Indigenous paradigm, Kovach asserts, should have a decolonizing perspective. Thambinathan and Kinsella (2021) propose four elements to guide researchers in employing a decolonizing lens: first, practicing creative reflexivity by questioning epistemological assumptions, the positionality of the researcher, and power dynamics, including any hierarchical barriers between the researcher and research participants; second, applying reciprocity and respect for Indigenous self-determination, which in addition to the broader aim of the research implies requesting consent at different stages of the research and listening affectively and attentively to Indigenous research participants; third, seeking to understand Indigenous ‘ways of knowing’ by endeavoring to unlearn and re-imagine how we construct, produce and value knowledge; and fourth, embracing a transformative praxis, through the research objectives broadly and by creating a space for discussing decolonizing practices throughout the inquiry. 106 4.3.4 Indigenous Methods Indigenous research and data collection methods are as diverse as the communities using them and can encompass storytelling, research circles, conversations, and journaling (Kovach, 2021). There is a continuum of ways to access information, from internal knowledge(s) that guide the research to external knowledge(s) from others (Kovach, 2010). According to a systemic review conducted by Dawson and colleagues (2017), Indigenous research methods shared the following characteristics: (1) contextual reflection, i.e., researchers situate themselves and the Indigenous individuals with whom they were collaborating in the research process; (2) Indigenous participants are included in the research process in a way that is respectful and reciprocal as well as decolonizing and self-deterministic; (3) Indigenous ‘ways of knowing’ are prioritized; (4) Indigenous communities determine the direction of the research and approaches used; and (5) values of the Indigenous group involved are reflected throughout the research method. Some Indigenous researchers have employed mixed Indigenous-Western methodology as their approach. Kovach (2010), for example, combined a conversational method congruent with an Indigenous paradigm with the Western grounded theory method to organize her research data. Lavalliée (2009) used two qualitative research methods in her inquiry: sharing circles to capture people’s experiences and an Indigenous art-based research method influenced by the Western Photovoice approach. The integration of Indigenous and Western methodologies, however, has been a topic of debate and critical reflection among many Indigenous researchers. These debates relate to the importance of respecting and understanding the epistemological and ontological foundations of Indigenous knowledges and applying superficial or inappropriate blending with Western paradigms (Battiste, 2017; Kovach, 2009; L. T. Smith, 2012; S. Wilson, 2008). 107 Indigenous research methodology obliges researchers to carry out personalized multi-layered preparatory work, including cultural self-identification and clarification of the purpose and motivation of the research inquiry (Kovach, 2009). Different from Western methodologies, Indigenous research frameworks ask researchers to be clear about both the academic and personal purpose behind their studies, including asking about the purpose of the research, the researcher’s motivation, and the contribution of the research back to the community (Drawson et al., 2017; Kovach, 2009). The self-introduction protocol is a part of this process, as Kovach explains: ‘It shows respect to ancestors and allows community to locate us’ (2009, p. 110). Situating self or self-location anchors knowledge within our own personal experiences, and these, in turn, influence our interpretations as researchers. It also builds trust, reciprocity, and rapport between the researcher and those being researched (Liamputtong, 2007, p 13, cited in Kovach, 2009). The relational element of Indigenous-led research is central to methodology, a concept referred to as ‘self-in-relation’ (Graveline, 2000) and ‘researcher in relation’ (Kovach, 2021). As noted by Kovach (2021, p. 111): ‘Tribal epistemologies cannot be disassociated with the subjective. Tribal epistemologies are a way of knowing that does not debate the subjectivity factor in knowledge production – subjectivity is a given. To embrace Indigenous methodologies is to accept subjective knowledge.’ Cultural grounding, defined as ‘the way culture nourishes the researcher’s spirit during the inquiry and how it nourishes the research itself,’ is another element of situating self with the research (Kovach, 2021, p. 116). Battiste (2005) notes that Indigenous knowledge is based on subjective experiences and is grounded in the relationships between people, the environment, and the spiritual world, it includes time-tested approaches that foster sustainability and environmental integrity. 108 4.3.5 Indigeneity and the Researcher Indigenous scholars pose important questions about who engages and conducts the research. For example: ‘Whose research is it? Who owns it? Whose interests does it serve? Who will benefit from it? Who has designed its questions and framed its scope? Who will carry it out? Who will write it up? How will its results be disseminated?’ (L. T. Smith, 2012, p. 5). These queries are relevant, especially considering Indigenous methodologies are relational. As Steinhauer (2002, pp. 72, 73) puts it: ‘How could anyone who is not Indigenous have the Indigenous knowledge that is required?’ Weber-Pillax (1999) also questions the indigeneity of the researcher, given political, social, and personal implications. Smith (2012) argues for a research agenda within Indigenous communities only, contending that the role of the non-Indigenous researcher is marginal for decolonizing methodologies. According to Smith, research carried out through ‘imperial eyes’ has historically oppressed Indigenous peoples and suppressed Indigenous knowledge (L. T. Smith, 2012). Independent of who the researcher is, Weber-Pillwax (1999) suggests that Indigenous methodologies consider the following principles: ¾ the interconnectedness of all living things; ¾ the motives and intentions of the research and how these aspects impact the community; ¾ the foundation of Indigenous research, which must lie within the reality of lived Indigenous experience; ¾ the theories developed or grounded, which must be supported by Indigenous epistemology as it is lived out and formed in the community; ¾ the transformative nature of research, which occurs as a natural result of personal internalizations of learning; ¾ the sacredness and responsibility of maintaining personal and community integrity; and 109 ¾ the recognition of languages and cultures as living processes, with Indigenous researchers having the responsibility to maintain and renew connections with ancestors and Indigenous people through the practice of these ways. Steinhauer (2002, p. 73) asserts that to adhere to Indigenous methodological principles, a researcher must know the cultural protocols, values, and beliefs of the Indigenous group associated with the study; a researcher must ensure that ‘the three R’s – respect, reciprocity, and relationality – are guiding the research.’ Having discussed key concepts related to collaborative research, co-design, and Indigenous methodologies, the following section introduces Waterways and discusses how these methodological approaches were reflected in this real-life project. 4.4 Waterways: Past Present and Future 4.4.1 Research Context ‘One of the strongest points raised by the majority of Syilx Okanagan community members is that we need to act now and be true leaders in water protection and management.’ Syilx siwɬkw (water) Strategy (ONA, 2021, p. 8) From 2017-2021, a team of Syilx and non-Indigenous academics and community partners collaborated in an inquiry and museum exhibition on human-water relations in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia (BC) Canada, entitled Waterways, Past, Present and Future. Water is a persistent concern in the Okanagan. The region, which is classified as semi-arid (see Figure 1), has the lowest per-person water availability in Canada, yet domestic per capita water use is more 110 than twice the national average (OBWB, 2011). A comprehensive water supply and demand study carried out by Okanagan Basin Water Board confirms that drought and water shortages are a significant threat to this region, and climate change scientists are predicting that, given current water use patterns and projected population growth, the valley will be facing significant and persistent water shortages by mid-century (Cohen et al., 2006). Figure 4.1 Images of Okanagan Landscapes Waterways was carried out on the territory of the Syilx (Okanagan) First Nation. The Syilx peoples, a trans-boundary tribe separated at the 49th parallel by the border between Canada and the US, have resided in the Okanagan region for millennia. The Syilx peoples have an intrinsic relationship with siwɬkw (water). They equate water with life and consider water their sacred relation, which they have an obligation to protect and keep healthy to ensure resiliency and relationship to the tmixw (land) (ONA, 2021). The Syilx Water Strategy (2021) recognizes the need to promote unity and collaboration with non-Indigenous neighbors and partners in Syilx Okanagan Territory to uphold their inherent responsibilities to siwɬkw (water). 4.4.2 The Waterways Research and Exhibition “Waterways Past, Present and Future” is a four-year undertaking involving the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO), Syilx Knowledge Keepers and local partners. The research and exhibition, collectively referred to as Waterways, are aimed at fostering sustainable 111 water practices by exploring the nature of human-water relationships in BC’s Okanagan valley. While the exhibition’s primary audience is the general public, its focus is on engaging school-age children and the Syilx community, given its Indigenous content. The Waterways exhibition opened in September 2021 at the Okanagan Heritage Museum in Kelowna, BC and is currently touring in the Okanagan valley. The Waterways exhibition features Syilx-led best practices in water management and social-ecological resilience, including the return of sockeye salmon to the Okanagan waterways and riparian restoration along Shingle Creek and Okanagan River. To communicate these stories in an immersive museum installation, the research team interviewed Syilx Knowledge Keepers, Syilx community members, and Western-trained experts, as well as recorded audio and video documentation of the environmental and cultural detail of the Okanagan landscape, soundscape, and community. During the interviews, participants discussed the significance of water, good practices in water ecosystems management and sustainability, new co-management arrangements for caring for our water and ecosystems, and lessons from these practices for the future. In total, 30 interviews and four focus groups with 32 participants were conducted, including 11 interviews carried out by a Syilx scholar with Syilx members of the Colville Confederated Tribe from Washington State in the US. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended to encourage conversation, as well as digitally recorded. In accordance with Syilx practice and protocol, each engagement involved a small gift to acknowledge the relationship and show gratitude and respect for the insights being offered. 112 4.4.3 The Research Team The research team comprised a large multidisciplinary group of artists and scientists, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, spanning the fields of Indigenous studies, fine arts, media studies, social and environmental anthropology, environmental science, computer science, complexity sciences, and architecture, among others. The team’s leaders brought deep experience in co-design, immersive technologies, participatory experiential design, complexity science, and Indigenous research methodologies. A Syilx Knowledge Keeper and eminent Canadian scholar co-led the project, which brought legitimacy and expertise to the research and ensured that Syilx traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) would be a foundational knowledge domain. Other Syilx scholars worked with non-Indigenous scholars to provide guidance and oversight at key junctures, including on methods and exhibition design, and conducted the interviews with Syilx Knowledge Keepers in Washington state. A mixed two-person Syilx-non-Indigenous team carried out and analyzed Waterways interviews. Having a Syilx scholar as part of the interviewing duo opened doors to the Syilx community, helped build a trusting research environment and comfortable interview setting, provided a sense of openness, rapport, and confidentiality, and helped gain cultural understanding and nuance from interview accounts. The mixed team protocol brought a bi-cultural theoretical perspective to interpreting and meaning-making of interview data. The blending of Syilx and Western worldviews in the analytical process, at times, led to significantly different interpretations of interview excerpts. This divergence, while challenging at times, proved beneficial overall as it facilitated valuable cross-cultural learning and deepened our comprehension. The goal was not to come to a consensus on the interpretations but to honor and showcase the unique ways of knowing and understanding of the data from both worldviews. This 113 difference in perspectives sparked growth among the researchers and enriched the project’s intellectual fabric, highlighting the positive impacts of embracing diverse worldviews in research. The museum installation reflects the contributions of the cross-cultural team, integrating architecture, graphic design, immersive design, multimedia and technology to share multilayered narratives representing the exhibition’s core concepts of human-water relations. The importance of bridging intercultural and transdisciplinary ways of knowing is reflected in recorded audio and video of interviewees and documentation of the environmental and cultural detail of the Okanagan landscape, soundscape, and community. 4.4.4 Waterways Exhibition Spaces – a Fusion of Western and Indigenous Perspectives Spatially, the museum installation includes a circular inner space comprising five video screens that feature continuous accounts from Syilx Knowledge Keepers and Western experts discussing the meaning of water and water stewardship (Figure 2). The narratives are superimposed with audio and video of Okanagan water, land, and soundscapes (Figure 3). The space was designed using a multi-channel sound and video media system, which was aimed at immersing, provoking, destabilizing, transforming, and moving museum visitors to reflect and take responsibility for water (Thorogood et al., 2022). The outer area of the exhibition includes computerized interactive screens of 3D virtual worlds of the Kelowna area surrounded by displays of Indigenous Syilx teachings and wisdom on human-water relations, resilience, and water values. The 3D virtual worlds show the ecological changes to flood plains, wetlands, and riparian habitats around Mill and Mission Creek since colonization. Screens are interactive and depict the diversity of life in the Okanagan 114 during this era, including plant, animal, and insect species indigenous to the region, which visitors can experience through touch-screen interfaces (Dulic et al., 2023; Dulic & Thoroood, 2020; Thorogood et al., 2022). The Waterways interactive virtual 3D world of the pre-colonial Okanagan landscape was constructed using an amalgam of scientific, Indigenous, artistic, and human-centered techniques and perspectives (Figure 4). Historical visualizations were constructed based on Syilx Knowledge Keeper recollections, naturalist and historic agricultural records, Okanagan Historical Society documentation of land tenure, reconstructed terrestrial ecosystem mapping for 1800 and 1938, and geospatial, land use, and zoning data. With mapping data and a high-definition rendering pipeline, the research team generated a detailed map of the local topography and vegetation pre-contact and then used the Unity Game Engine with the GAIA Toolit to procedurally generate the terrain and populate plant species within defined microclimates. A large number of resources were compiled for accurate plant and animal models to be inserted into the 3D world. The team referenced a list of plants and animals from the Syilx En’owkin Centre and environmental history literature of the Okanagan, acquired available 3D resources to cover as much of the list as possible, and modified and built animal and plant assets for location-specific variations of Okanagan species. Figure 4.2 Drawing of Waterways Exhibition Floorplan (Drawing by Sepideh Saffari) 115 4.4.5 Collaborative Research Design and Implementation Strengthening cross-cultural and transdisciplinary understandings, collaboration, knowledge sharing and multidirectional channels of communication on water responsibility was an explicit goal of Waterways. Collaboration between the researchers and the Syilx community was a prerequisite for cross-cultural understanding, and in turn, fostering understanding was a precondition of collaboration. Iterative shared working processes were central to Waterways, from conceptualization and design to museum production. For the first few years of the project, the research team spent most of its time within the Syilx community, shadowing practitioners at the ECOmmunity Place and participating in community activities such as traditional ceremonies. ‘Ask, ask, ask [the Syilx community],’ ‘follow the [Syilx] people,’ ‘shadow, record and learn [from Syilx community members]’ became the research team’s mantras over the four-year project. Team members continuously asked: ‘what should we focus on?’ ‘what do the [Syilx] people want?’ and ‘how do we represent the [Syilx] people?’ This immersion in the Syilx community pre-empted the conceptualization and design of Waterways. Figure 4.3 Waterways Exhibition Inner Space (Photo by Sepideh Saffari) 116 Team members also participated in an enowkinwixw community engagement process for an associated UBCO project, during which Syilx leaders articulated their research interests and needs.i Enowkinwixw is a traditional governance method used within the Syilx community that supports collaborative creativity, directs individualized positions toward a collective perspective, and builds solidarity for the benefit of all who are impacted or affected by the issue under discussion (J. C. Armstrong, 2009). Themes prioritized during the enowkinwixw event with UBCO included exploring TEK (Syilx-led and controlled) and the relationship between Western science and TEK, building the capacity of Indigenous youth and scholars, and studying riparian zones, cottonwoods, salmon population restoration, grizzly bear habitats and huckleberry. Waterways ultimately espoused several of these lines of inquiry consistent with Indigenous methodological, co-design and justice design principles of focusing on the concerns of those most impacted by the outcome of the design and responding to the articulated interests of the Syilx community. The composition of the Waterways research team, which, as noted above, comprised a large group of artists and scientists from UBCO, both Syilx and non-Indigenous, as well as community partners, reflected the aim of collaboration and transdisciplinary research. Waterways partners included the Syilx En’owkin Center, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, the Kelowna Museums Society, the Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program and the Okanagan Basin Water Board. At UBCO, Waterways worked out of the Centre for Culture and Technology to bring together researchers on complex environmental systems and adaptation, de-colonization and Indigeneity, biodiversity, and resilience. 117 An iterative co-creative process was applied throughout the research and design to capture the richness of cross-disciplinary practice. New knowledge and artwork developed for the museum exhibition, for example, evolved through collaboration between cross-functional team members. These teams convened regularly, usually weekly but often multiple times a week (conducted in person or via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic) and were guided by Waterways research and community partners. The partners met bi-monthly on average to assess progress, validate research findings and outputs, and offer feedback. Team meetings took place at various locations, depending on the nature of the work, including at the Syilx ECOmmunity Place or at restoration and riparian sites. Waterways served as a design container for transdisciplinary perspectives and sources of scientific, anthropological, artistic and community knowledge, from which meaning and multiple ways of knowing were derived. The co-creation process deliberately emphasized the perspectives and knowledge of Syilx participants, acknowledging their profound connection to water and their extensive water-related knowledge, Figure 4.4 Waterways 3D Visualization Images from Mill Creek Ecosystem 118 while also addressing historical imbalances of power. In alignment with Indigenous protocols, the Syilx community played a crucial role in validating the research findings and the materials prepared for the exhibition. Given that Syilx team members are employed by the En’owkin Center or the Okanagan Nation Alliance, and are integral members of Syilx bands, there was a constant and meaningful engagement with the wider Syilx community throughout the entire research process. The museum exhibition was evaluated using a participatory visual matrix method, an approach that captures the shared experiences of participants and the collective impacts stimulated by the sensory material of the exhibition. The evaluation consisted of two events held at the Okanagan Heritage Museum exhibition hall, each involving 10-12 participants from the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities. The evaluation’s participatory setting and collective reflection process resulted in the symbolization of imaginative and emotional reactions, which otherwise would not have been articulated consciously. 4.4.6 An Indigenous Paradigmatic Design Indigenous research methodologies are about understanding the paradigm, which means that the research flows from an Indigenous belief system and is inherently relational. The Waterways theoretical framework embodies a Syilx Indigenous belief system in its research protocols and exhibition. The creative artistic process, for example, was harmonized with Indigenous methodologies to form a holistic research framework and convey realities as relational and interconnected. The inquiry itself embraced Syilx values of relational accountability, responsibility, relevance, and reciprocal engagement with all living beings. 119 Indigenous methodologies similarly underscore research that respects Indigenous values. Data gathered for Waterways and subsequently used for the museum installation reflected the cultural protocols, values, and beliefs of the Syilx people. These included the needs of the whole living system of tmixʷ (which refers to the land and all life forms and relationships of a place); the belief that humans are an equal part of tmixw along with all other living and non-living things; the non-negotiable obligation of Syilx stewardship of the tmixw, and the role of captikʷɬ (stories) as an ethical roadmap and system of intergenerational knowledge transmission (J. C. Armstrong, 2009, 2018). Indigenous values equating water with life and water as the most important element of all things in nature were reflected in the didactics on the exhibition’s panels. The Syilx cultural significance of re-establishing the sockeye salmon population, the cultural imperative of restoring habitats, riparian systems, and biodiversity in the Okanagan, and the role of ceremony in strengthening community values, were also highlighted in the exhibition’s audio and visual materials (Figure 5). Furthermore, Waterways artwork was conceptualized to create an imaginative space of engagement and reflection on multiple realities embedded in the ‘place’ of the Okanagan. Benefits to Indigenous communities are a central tenet of Indigenous methodologies. One of the significant contributions of Waterways was documented Indigenous plants and knowledge, including from elders interviewed by the project who have since passed on. This invaluable knowledge has now been meticulously preserved and archived at the Syilx En’owkin Center. Additionally, the project successfully developed 3D models of these plants in nsyilxcən (the Syilx language) and created detailed 3D visualizations of the Okanagan as it was before colonization. These detailed representations pay tribute to the ecological richness of the Okanagan and celebrate a place of profound importance to the Syilx people due to their deep and 120 enduring connection to the land. Furthermore, members of the Syilx team highlight the value of Waterways as a powerful educational resource for Indigenous youth and children. 4.4.7 Drawing on Indigenous Knowledge(s) and Western Science Exploring the contemporary significance of Syilx TEK and how TEK and Western science complement one another was a Waterways research theme, following the request of Syilx community members during the enowkinwixw event. These topics were subsequently probed in interviews, particularly in discussions related to the sockeye salmon return and the Syilx ECOmmunity Place’s reestablishment of the Yellow-Breasted Chat in the Okanagan. The research revealed that bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems is increasingly valued. Interviewees stressed that applying TEK and Western knowledge can significantly relieve disruptions to the land, restore traditional socio-ecological relationships, and develop successful approaches to resilience in the face of climate change. Waterways also explored multiple ‘ways of knowing.’ Interviews revealed that, for example, knowledge can come from a myriad of sources, including the oral tradition of intergenerational knowledge sharing, traditional teachings, empirical observation, and revelations. As explained by one Syilx Knowledge Keeper: ‘When I have a question, I ask myself, what do the Elders say? What do the stories tell us? What does the land or water say? It is a physical thing. When I’m out in my environment, I am conscious about the insects, bugs, dust, dirt and what they are telling me. It is also a metaphysical thing. What are my dreams telling me’? 4.4.8 A Decolonizing and Design-Justice Approach A decolonizing perspective was intrinsic to Waterways. From its inception, Waterways challenged Western epistemological convention by bringing Indigenous methodologies to the 121 inquiry, applying the enowkinwixw process to identify research themes, having Syilx scholars lead different parts of the research, conducting interviews based on Syilx protocols, acknowledging the value and contributions of Syilx knowledge systems and bringing Syilx voices and ‘ways of knowing’ to the museum audio and video installations and didactics. Conversations and exchanges conducted with the Syilx community, which were ultimately reflected in the museum exhibition, also created a space for discussing Syilx self-determination and transformation of practices and values vis-à-vis water. Furthermore, Waterways shed light on important issues related to Syilx governance in the analysis of sockeye salmon return to the Okanagan waterways. Research revealed, for example, that recognizing the Okanagan Nation Alliance as a legitimate government within the tripartite provincial-federal-Indigenous co-management framework, with equal decision-making powers among the three partners, was central to the success of sockeye salmon restoration. Design justice principles were similarly present in the Waterways inquiry and museum exhibit. In addition to bringing multiple ways of knowing and skills to the design process, the Figure 4.5 Photographs of Cottonwood Species and Syilx Salmon Ceremonies 122 inquiry brought awareness to the structural inequalities and mistreatment historically faced by the Syilx peoples. Interviewees spoke of the personal and collective impact of the Columbia Basin Water Treaty between Canada and the U.S. through stories of change and destruction of traditional water and land habitats. How the Syilx community endured and experienced injustice and racism through their restoration efforts and the resilience of the Syilx Nation in the face of oppression emerged during interviews and were reflected in the exhibition installation. One Syilx participant used the reestablishment of sockeye salmon as a metaphor for the return of the Syilx people: ‘The success of the chiefs following their vision, following their calling [to return the salmon]and following what was presented to them is a result of long and hard sacrifices with our ceremonies, of us saying we have resisted, despite legislation trying to wipe us out. The resistance: the resistance of the people in terms of secretly singing our songs, secretly speaking our language. But that’s also in our captikʷɬ [stories] I know that’s a natural part of us returning and 4.5 Discussion The Waterways four-year research and museum exhibition on human-water relations in the Syilx Okanagan territory provides a real-life example of effective cross-cultural research that applied a mixed Western co-design and Indigenous methodological approach. Collaborative design principles reflected in Waterways included prioritizing design justice and incorporating reflexivity, flexibility, iteration, and emergence in the design process. From an Indigenous methodologies perspective, Waterways took an Indigenous ‘paradigmatic perspective,’ in that the inquiry and exhibition flowed from the Syilx belief system with its worldviews and cultural values; acknowledged unique Syilx knowledge systems, which are oral, experiential, and holistic and transmitted through story; encompassed Indigenous ‘ways of knowing’ and lived daily 123 experiences; adopted a decolonizing framing to the methodology; and responded to Syilx needs and interests. Common to both methodological orientations is ‘relational practice,’ which in Indigenous research is referred to as ‘self-in-relation’ and ‘researcher in relation’ and acknowledges the necessary subjective role of the researcher in the inquiry. Co-design research is inherently relational. As noted earlier, it is rooted in the practice concept of reflection-in-action and Schön’s ‘reflective practitioner’ in simultaneously integrating reflection with action and implementation. An important methodological lesson arising from the Waterways mixed methodological approach was the need for the team to conform to culturally appropriate methods. This included framing the project based on Syilx-led ethical protocols of engagement and drawing from a traditional Syilx enowkinwixw process to identify relevant research lines of inquiry, having the team participate in cultural ceremonies that hold meaning and significance to Syilx research partners, and applying methods that focused on Syilx oral accounts and stories. The immersive artistic exhibition design reflected these Syilx culturally appropriate methods with its inclusion of Indigenous voices, different ways of knowing, audiovisual communication elements, and a circular reflective inner space. Another lesson from applying co-design and Indigenous methodologies in cross-cultural research is its time-intensive nature, which diverges from research funding cycles that tend to be short-term. This is particularly problematic when addressing inherently complex long-term issues related to climate and social change. In the case of Waterways, establishing relationships and building mutual understanding and trust with non-academic Indigenous research partners and fulfilling the obligations of Indigenous methodologies and co-design was time-consuming and risky. Continuously shadowing Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and experts on the land to 124 learn about Syilx values, protocols, and practices and learn about Indigenous knowledge was central to the Waterways approach, but it also took time. Moreover, the research team had planned to co-design and build 3D visualizations of four Okanagan waterways; however, time pressures meant only one could be completed. Finally, as per Indigenous methodological principles, research outputs belong to the community where the inquiry is being conducted. For ethical reasons and to ensure accuracy and authenticity, the Waterways findings and exhibition content had to be validated and authorized by the community, which was also more meticulous and time-consuming than expected. Finally, by applying a mixed Western co-design and Indigenous approach, Waterways was able to create an ethical space of engagement between the Syilx and non-Syilx communities. In the Indigenous context, ethical space is formed when “two societies, with disparate worldviews, are poised to engage each other” (Ermine, 2007, p. 93) and “where world views meet as equals, in which colonial hierarchies of knowledge systems (epistemologies) and world views (ontologies) are countered” (Nelson & Wilson, 2018, p. 21). Waterways, through its four-year engagement process and co-design process, was able to create this physical, psychological, and social ethical space through its introspection and reflection, dialogic engagement, relationship building, sharing of worldviews and ethics, learning and adaptation, and orientation toward justice and decolonization. Given the limited literature that exists on operationalizing ethical space concepts in Indigenous contexts (Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022), Waterways provides some insights on moving from concept to praxis. 125 4.6 Conclusion This article explores the application of co-design and Indigenous methodologies within “Waterways, Past, Present and Future”—an immersive media exhibition and research inquiry examining human-water relations in the Syilx Okanagan First Nation territory, BC, Canada. Amidst the nation’s bumpy path toward reconciliation and the paucity of real-world experiences, Waterways emerges as a valuable model for cross-cultural collaboration in both research and co-design. By employing a mixed Indigenous-Western methodological framework, the project facilitated mutual understanding and helped bridge the gap in worldviews, values, and knowledge systems. The resulting exhibition’s synergistic content, form, structure, audio-visual elements, and ambiance manifested a creative and technical amalgam of Indigenous and Western influences, underscored by shared values. Waterway’s effectiveness can be attributed to the formation of a transdisciplinary team comprising both Syilx and non-Indigenous scholars, the application of a decolonizing approach to research, and the adoption of inquiry lines that bridged Syilx traditional knowledge with Western academic paradigms. Furthermore, a significant investment of time was made for place-based learning within the Syilx territory, fostering trust and cultivating relationships within the community. Waterways, and initiatives of its kind, underscore the capacity of Indigenous communities to lead or co-lead research and co-design projects as well as the corollary challenges. Parallel examples from cross-cultural research partnerships in Indigenous settings, such as those involving the Rakiura Māori and Ngāti Hine tribes in New Zealand and the OurRiver Cooks River Sustainability Initiative, further enrich this narrative (Bos & Brown, 2012; PO'B, 2005). Together, these endeavors exemplify the potential of culturally responsive, 126 Indigenous-led research to engender change, bridge diverse epistemologies, and cultivate understanding, thereby contributing to the goal of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. 4.7 Acknowledgments Although many people helped in developing the Waterways Project and museum exhibition, the following individuals made up the core project team: Aleksandra Dulic, artistic direction; Amanda Snyder, curation; Carla Mather, 3D project manager; Dallmar Hussein, 3D interface design; Emerald Holt, content development; Jeannette Armstrong, Indigenous leadership & and knowledge; John Wagner, content development; Jordan Pike, 3D visualization & and production; Lael Parrott, content development; Linda Digby, project proponent; Maria Correia, project production; Marlowe Sam, Indigenous knowledge & and research; Miles Thorogood, sound composition, systems design &and development; A. Michael Bezener, content development; Rylan Broadband, module design & and development; Sarah Alexis, Indigenous content development; Scott Boswell, content development; Sepideh Saffari, exhibition design Others who provided support and contributed to Waterways include: KayKaitkw Harron Hall, Ahlam Bavi, Alex Lake, Alison Trim, Echo Sulin, Felicia Watterodt, Julian Pena, Madeline Donald, Kaede Tara Dunn, Meg Yamamoto, River Dunn, Trevor Richard and Tyrel Narciso. 127 Chapter 5: The Sensual Experience of Waterways Immersive Exhibition: applying the visual matrix evaluatory method (Manuscript 4) Abstract This paper describes the sensory and emotional responses provoked by “Waterways: Past, Present and Future,” an immersive digital exhibition exploring human water relations in the Okanagan valley, Canada. Through immersion and flexibility of computational media, the exhibition extends beyond traditional digital media displays to create an embodied and visceral interaction with the theme of water through sight and sound.(Dulic et al., 2023). Applying the visual matrix evaluator method, we discern that the exhibition captures the profound sensory engagement of participants, highlighting how the exhibition facilitates access to the emotional and cultural significances of water. We find that the exhibition not only amplifies the sensory experience of visitors but also resonates with Indigenous epistemologies that celebrate the interconnectedness of life and the holistic acquisition of knowledge. The findings illustrate that Waterways acts as a sensory catalyst that evokes a deeper cognitive and emotional awareness of water’s centrality in ecological and cultural continuums. The paper underscores the value of sensual ethnography in environmental understanding and the integration of Indigenous perspectives in contemporary museology, advocating for an enriched, inclusive dialogue on immersive exhibition design and evaluation. 5.1 Introduction Artistic expression across diverse mediums has become a pivotal means for raising awareness and fostering public engagement with the complex issue of climate change, underscoring the vital role of semiotic and phenomenological visual and interactive methods. Educational video 128 games for example, have been used to catalyze reflection and dialogue, particularly among youth (Ballantyne, 2016; Dulic et al., 2016; Dulic et al., 2011). The visual arts, through installations such as Eliasson’s “Ice Watch,” offer a tangible encounter with the impacts of global warming (Hornby, 2017), while the film industry, with documentaries such as Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” serving to popularize the discourse (Gore, 2006). In literature, the cli-fi genre, exemplified by Atwood’s “MaddAddam” trilogy, imagines the lived realities of future climates (Jennings, 2019) and the performance arts, with initiatives such as the Climate Change Theatre Action, and Adams’ symphony “Become Ocean,” have leverage the emotive power of performance to communicate climate narratives and represent the grandeur and fragility of nature (May, 2020) (Stevens, 2017). Similarly public and digital art forms, along with artistic activism by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, use public spaces and digital innovation to create impactful, participatory experiences (Berglund & Schmidt, 2020). Thus, by communicating the science of climate change in culturally resonant ways, these artistic endeavours have served not only to inform but also to galvanize a collective response to the existential challenge of climate change. Evaluating the impact of artistic expressions presents an intricate blend of challenges that complicate the research process, demanding evaluative methodologies that can navigate the individual and cultural diversity of experiences (Schorch et al., 2015). To address these complexities, evaluators have employed a multiplicity of research tools, including surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups (E. King et al., 2023). Observational research can shed light on behavioral engagement with the exhibit, capturing non-verbal cues and interactions with the sensory elements of the art (Reitstätter et al., 2022). The transient and intimate nature of sensory experiences, however, often demands that these traditional approaches be augmented by more 129 innovative techniques that strive to construct a nuanced picture of the museum-goer’s sensual experience, despite the challenges posed by the deeply personal and ephemeral qualities of sensory engagement with art (Jelinčić et al., 2021). Visual matrix, a qualitative group-based research method that employs visual stimuli to examine collective emotions and experiences, is one such method (Froggett, 2020; Froggett et al., 2015; Froggett et al., 2019). With its focus on imagery, visualization, and affect rather than discourse, it facilitates the emergence of individuals’ “unthought” dimensions to come to light within a collective setting. Applying the visual matrix method, this paper outlines the results of an evaluation of the Waterways: Past, Present and Future, a digital media museum exhibition that explores the diverse meanings and common interests that water in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley, Canada. The paper has two aims: (1) to examine the exhibition’s effect on the sensory and emotional engagement of participants; and (2) to solicit participants’ feedback on the effectiveness of the visual matrix method. 5.1.1 Conceptual Background In the expanse of contemporary scholarship, three concepts—Digital Ethnography, Sensual Ethnography, and Landscape/Environmental Aesthetics—form a vibrant mosaic that articulates the human experience in the digital age. These domains, though distinct in their focus, are interconnected through their exploration of culture, sensation, and the environment, engaging deeply with Indigenous scholarship. This intricate connection informs our understanding of the ways in which these scholarly arenas are both influenced by and influence the intersection of technology, sensual experiences, and ecological consciousness. 130 Digital Ethnography capitalizes on the surge of digital technologies to delve into and convey cultural phenomena. Embracing audiovisual media, this field enriches the portrayal of human experiences, intertwining being, knowledge, and practice. As Howard and Mawyer (2015)) note, it dissolves traditional research confines, facilitating deeper insights into the digital threads woven into the cultural fabric. Underberg and Zorn (2013) further note that digital media not only depict but also engage audiences with cultural experiences, reflecting an integrative approach. This synthesis of technology, ethnography, and artistry is vividly displayed in interactive museum exhibits, epitomizing the co-evolution of technology and cultural expression within the expansive landscape of media ecology. Anthropology has increasingly focused on multimodal media (Banks et al., 2001; Pink, 2004) and the senses (Classen, 2023; Howes, 2010; Vannini, 2014). Sensory ethnography is a research method in anthropology and related social sciences that emphasizes the use of the senses as a key aspect of the ethnographic experience and data collection. As an emerging trend, sensory ethnography studies sensual and multimodal experiences. As an approach to inquiry, it enables researchers to be attentive to how participants as collaborators express knowledge in sensual and nonverbal ways. This practice encourages researchers to be fully attuned to the sensory aspects of being, knowing, and doing, challenging them to find novel ways to observe, record, and represent cultural knowledge. Scholars like Sarah Pink have stressed the need for anthropological representations that encapsulate embodied experiences, employing tools like audiovisual media to enhance traditional written narratives. The challenges this presents are complex, as they involve capturing and expressing the full spectrum of human sensory experiences within cultural studies. To address these challenges, anthropologists are exploring diverse methods such as writing, visual arts, and experiential design to achieve comprehensive 131 ethnographic representation. The shift towards public-facing and interdisciplinary scholarship has encouraged collaborations across fields like ethnography, digital media, and computational science, fostering the development of immersive and accessible sensory ethnographic work. These collaborations are particularly pertinent in creating participatory media for environments such as museum exhibitions, where they can facilitate engaging, culturally sensitive experiences for wider communities. Sensory ethnography and Indigenous epistemologies converge in multiple ways (Hendry & Fitznor, 2012; Kovach, 2021). Both prioritize experiential knowledge and holistic learning, for example, that engages all senses with the environment. Similarly, they both emphasize non-verbal communication and material culture in understanding and perpetuating cultural narratives and share a profound respect for the role of place, acknowledging how physical and spiritual connections to the land shape cultural perceptions and stories. Storytelling, a key component of knowledge transmission in Indigenous communities, is also central to sensory ethnography, which uses narratives to reveal cultural identities and values through sensory experiences. These methods prioritize a relational approach to knowledge, recognizing the dynamic interplay among individuals, their communities, and their environments. They advocate for immersive, community-focused research that challenges Western linear time concepts in favor of cyclical time, essential to grasping cultural phenomena. Both value intangible knowledge like emotions and spirituality, offering a comprehensive cultural perspective, as well as critiquing dominant epistemologies by bringing to light diverse and often overlooked ways of knowing. Media art’s challenge in depicting sensual knowledge is tied closely to aesthetics, a principle that governs our sensory engagement with the world and appreciation of beauty (Jelinčić et al., 2021). This concept highlights the impact of our sensory interactions with the 132 environment, prompting a reawakening to beauty that can inspire ecological stewardship, as exemplified by the iconic Earth image from space, which can invoke a sense of global responsibility. Gregory Bateson’s work advocates for a fusion of aesthetics, ecology, and spirituality, proposing that recognizing life’s sacred patterns through aesthetic experience can foster an ecocentric ethos and deeper ecological comprehension (Bateson, 2000). Similarly, John Dewey views the aesthetic as an everyday experience that connects us to our environment, with the potential to drive societal change through a cultivated sensibility to the natural world around us (Dewey, 1980). 5.1.2 The Waterways Exhibition “Waterways, Past, Present and Future,” – referred to hereafter as Waterways – is a museum exhibition on human-water relations in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia (BC), Canada. Waterways was carried out on the territory of the Syilx (Okanagan) First Nation, a transboundary tribe separated at the 49th parallel by the border between Canada and the US that has resided in this region for millennia. The Syilx people have an intrinsic relationship with water, equating water with life and considering water their sacred relation, which they have an obligation to protect and steward (ONA, 2021). The Waterways inquiry and exhibition was aimed at highlighting Syilx water values in the context of past, present and future of Okanagan waterways. Spatially, the Waterways installation includes a circular inner space comprising video screens that feature continuous accounts from Syilx Knowledge Keepers and Western experts discussing the meaning of water and water stewardship. The narratives are superimposed with audio and video clips of Okanagan water, land, and soundscapes. The exhibit combines portable 133 physical installation infrastructure design, audio-visual media, storytelling, flexible computational compositions and 3D immersive visualizations that overlay the past with the present to reveal seeds for resilient futures. Immersion is achieved through flexible aural, visual, textual, and imaginary media weaved into a portable spatial infrastructure. All elements were collaboratively created through a community-engaged process, following and celebrating the most impressive and unprecedented Indigenous-led restoration initiatives in the Okanagan. Sensual ethnographic strategies were used to select the topics, collect data, record, analyze, and edit media, and present and evaluate an immersive exhibit. The resulting work provides a sensual space to reflect on challenging concepts of water and water stewardship through a close look at the waterways that sustain us, the responsibilities we hold for our waters, and the ways we govern reflected in our values and worldviews. We articulate methodological, compositional, and reception challenges and opportunities in integrating hybrid computational media experiences within the exhibition. 5.2 Methods The Waterways evaluation consisted of two sessions at the Kelowna Heritage Museum held in February and March 2022, with eight and 13 participants, respectively. Participants included members of the public, water experts from the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and members of the academic community. The evaluation comprised of a four-step process: - Participants gathered and viewed the exhibition, including the inner circle of land and soundscapes and an outer circle that includes 3D visualizations of the region and Indigenous didactical presentations. Participants were encouraged to reflect on the components of the exhibit and stimulate their own associations and images in preparation for the visual matrix exercise that would follow. This portion took about 20 minutes. 134 - Participants sat in a campfire-style full circle with an imaginary firepit in the center. This configuration diverged from the Visual Matrix suggested snowflake seating aimed at preventing participants from gazing at and engaging with other participants (Froggett, 2020); however, the circular sitting arrangement was more in line with Syilx participatory methods. To overcome the tendency to observe others, participants were asked to close their eyes as they reflected and spoke. To initiate the process, participants were prompted with “if you let your mind wander, what mental images, associations and feelings arise?” Participants were asked explicitly to avoid judgment and opinion, eye contact, and discussion with others. This portion took about 30 minutes. - A post-matrix session was held in the same circle, where participants commented on the evaluatory experience, including if and how they benefited, and if they experienced any discomfort or negative associations. Participants were asked to contribute emergent ideas by metaphorically “throwing thoughts in the firepit.” This portion took about 15 minutes. - Following the evaluation exercise, researchers met to discuss their initial and overall impressions, feelings, and thoughts from the evaluation. Sessions were transcribed, and thematic analysis was conducted. As described by Braun & Clarke (2012), the thematic analysis method offers an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analyzing qualitative data compared to other methods. The analysis broadly followed Braun & Clarke’s phased method to generate, view, and themes, which was carried out in a reflective and iterative process between phases (Nowell et al., 2017). 5.3 Results The evaluation of the visitors’ experience distilled a rich tapestry of insights into our connection with water, woven through a number of underlying concepts. The indispensable nature of water to life and its capacity to stir deep emotional responses was evident. Concerns about 135 sustainability and the implications of human impact on water systems underscored a shared sense of guardianship for this precious resource. The art’s multisensory engagement was lauded for fostering communal contemplation and a deeper grasp of water’s complexities. Additionally, visitors acknowledged water’s omnipresence in various forms and cycles, urging a broader awareness of its hidden yet vital roles. Emotionally, the exhibition struck a chord, highlighting the role of collective emotional investment in water conservation and the way our feelings towards the environment shape our actions. Together, these reflections form a narrative of reverence, responsibility, and emotional engagement with the world’s water systems. 5.3.1 Water as life Visitor feedback highlights a deep connection to water, recognizing it as a fundamental element that is vital to life and imbued with both practical and spiritual significance, consistent with Syilx values. Water is revered not just as a necessity for survival but as the lifeblood that weaves through the fabric of existence, connecting all forms of life with its sustaining presence. It is celebrated as a dynamic force, fostering vitality and unity across diverse ecosystems. The exhibition prompted participants to reflect on water’s profound role in their own lives, provoking emotional and introspective responses that underscore its intrinsic value beyond mere utility and its powerful influence on individual and collective identities. Some reactions included: “Water is much like a living being; it is constantly moving; constantly moving through time and space and changing its form from solid to gas and constantly permeating different mediums.” “As water moves and changes, it provides life for everything that is living and we need to slow down to open up to this sensation of beauty.” 136 “When I reflect on the image of the waterways, the syilx concept of living water, water as a sentient being, comes to mind….It also provides connections among all life. We are partly made out of water and water is part of our environment.” “Full immersion in Okanagan Lake has a sense of fullness in the summer. There’s no sound other than your heart beating. And you enter a different world with a sense of unique spiritual experience.” 5.3.2 Responsibility to Water Participants reflected an acute awareness of the critical challenges posed by climate change and the vital need for water responsibility. Comments reflected the urgency of addressing these challenges, acknowledging the importance of safeguarding water for current and future generations, preserving ecological integrity, promoting equitable access to clean water, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. The experiences and concerns shared by participants, such as dealing with droughts and erratic weather, highlight a shared apprehension about the escalating impacts of climate change in the Okanagan. Feedback shared reflects the sensual experience of Waterways as it relates to climate change and responsibility to water, for example: “This past spring and summer, we had a drought here in the Okanagan. It was hard to function in that environment. I’m becoming very aware of my personal need for water, but I could see the suffering in plants and in other animals, birds panting because they didn’t have enough moisture.” “The heat from last year was scary. The drought was scorching. The fisheries were closed. Blue herons in Vernon were suffering. And we’re dealing with floods one year, and then fires and droughts in another, sometimes even in the same year, and this is scary.” 137 “The image of the waterways as bloodlines of the land we live in can act as a connective element for all life. It calls us to take responsibility for the water we share. Responsibility for understanding the ways of the water.” “The idea is that there is a responsibility to know those plants, to know those animals, to know where they live, to know how they live, and know how to use them and how to harvest them; it isn’t necessarily a responsibility only for syilx people.” 5.3.3 The Multifaceted Essence of Water Participants’ comments suggest an overarching appreciation for the multifaceted essence of water and its enduring importance throughout the seasons. Water is not merely perceived as a fundamental resource but as a vibrant, living entity that serves as an interconnecting force binding all forms of life. Participants engage in introspection, delving into the emotional, ecological, cultural, and societal dimensions of water and recognizing its central role in their existence. Moreover, reflections emphasize the significance of acknowledging water’s less conspicuous aspects, such as groundwater and atmospheric water, which often go unnoticed. Participants stress the imperative of recognizing water beyond its surface appearances, shedding light on these concealed yet indispensable facets, for example: “The stillness of the water in the winter. When everything is frozen, it is time to spend with the family. It is time to build those intimate connections—less movement and travel. The power of water in the spring and how much it can transform the land depending on the winter conditions. The communal life of water in the fall. Salmon returns and people gather to fish and spend time together in ceremonies. The fun element of water in the summer.” 138 “Water is much like a living being it is constantly moving; constantly moving through time and space and changing its form from solid to gas and constantly permeating different mediums.” “What about the water we can’t see, the water in the atmosphere, for example? We see it in clouds. I think much about groundwater and its connection to the water on the surface and the air. For many people, it is out of sight when the water is in the ground.” 5.3.4 The Sensory Impact of the Exhibition The collective comments of the group underscore the potent impact of art in engaging the senses and facilitating communal reflection and discourse. Visitors can almost “feel” the textures, temperatures, and atmospheres of the water and landscapes portrayed in the artwork. This sensory engagement enhances the overall aesthetic experience and emotional connection to the subject matter. “The sounds that we’re playing here of water flowing is a perfect sound for me, and I find it really comforting and nurturing. And the other thing that makes me think of is the feeling of when I put my hand in it or my foot, or some part of me, there’s something about that experience of water, that sensual.” The exhibition profoundly impacted participants, invoking a sensory experience that transcends mere visual observation, as they report feeling the textures and atmospheres of the water and landscapes. The art immerses them, recalling personal connections to water’s dual nature—tranquil yet formidable. These shared sensory encounters foster a community, uniting visitors in reflection on water’s complex roles: “I felt immersed... It reminded me of diving into the lake... You enter a different world with a sense of unique spiritual experience.” 139 “Water is, at times, peaceful, calming, soft and healing. Other times it is frightening and powerful.” “It brings me back to being a kid in a canoe with my dad and my brother in Ontario in Algonquin territory and being on a lake that was a beautiful, calm, gentle feeling, and the wind came up, and suddenly that same water was threatening and scary, terrifying.” 5.3.5 Evoking Feelings and Emotions Waterways elicited strong emotional responses within the group, emphasizing the collective nature of both the experiences and the responsibility towards water conservation. It inspired shared feelings of joy and healing, especially poignant in experiences such as the refreshing rain after drought. This collective joy underscores the emotional connections people have with water and the natural world. Moreover, the idea of collective love for water is proposed as a catalyst for its protection. Visitors resonate with the exhibition’s ability to provoke a range of emotions, from joy to anger, fostering a deep aesthetic appreciation for nature and a connection to water that extends beyond the visible, into the emotional and spiritual realm. “The day that it rained after that long drought. That switch between that oppressive hard feeling of the suffering of beings deprived of water in the summer, moving into a feeling of just utter joy of rain. Feeling the rain and smelling the earth, the soil, bacteria, the plants.” “The idea is that if we can fall in love together with our waters, natural habitats, places, and the land where we live—we can protect it. Protect what we are in love with.” “I think there’s something very wonderful about the slowness of the exhibit, the attention to detail and the quietness of images and sounds, that allows space to 140 feel and love in contrast to an often otherwise overwhelming sense of anger or sadness.” 5.4 The Visual Matrix as an Evaluatory Method Participants’ feedback on the evaluation experience suggests that the visual matrix method is an effective collective, sensory-driven approach for evaluating the Waterways exhibition, enhancing communal reflection and engagement, transforming individual experiences into shared insight, and fostering emotional connections and communal narratives about water. Participants noted the method’s capacity to draw out profound personal associations with water: “You get so much more out of the experience... What did other people feel? See? Hear?... Many beautiful images of water came forward...” Others commented that the method nurtures a dual benefit, enriching participants while contributing to a community’s collective wisdom: “While I hope you got something out of it... we also got something out of it... it is also about being together in a community.” Furthermore, the group dynamic encouraged a holistic view of the exhibition, valuing collective intelligence and emotional responses over individual cognitive interpretation, for example: “This process allows for group intelligence... I find that valuable because I see how people read the installation and images.” Interestingly, the freeform and organic nature of the visual matrix approach paralleled the exhibition’s fluid subject of water, supporting a natural and dynamic exchange: “I liked this freeform process... it also felt organic because we are surrounded by all these organic images.” Physical sensations and emotional reactions took precedence over cognitive analysis, leading to a holistic understanding of the exhibition’s impact: “What I liked about the process... we dealt with the physical sensations of the show, and how powerful is the images we developed together.” A non-judgmental, free-flowing dialogue space reflects the fluidity of water, fostering 141 creativity and openness: “You called this process an image matrix... I think that this provided an open space in which participants are not feeling judged... to create together images in the circle.” Finally, a few participants commented on the value of silence for personal reflection, balancing environmental urgency with a space for emotional respite: “I’m used to thinking about environmental issues here with a lot more urgency and anguish... Those moments of silence allowed us to be alone with our thoughts...” In short, according to the Waterways experience, the visual matrix method was not merely a tool for evaluation but a reflective experience that resonated with the essence of the exhibition. It provided a communal sensory platform that was as fluid and transformative as the water it sought to represent, ensuring that both individual voices and collective insights could be heard and valued in the continuous dialogue. 5.5 Discussion Our findings suggest that digital platforms such as Waterways can provide a unique and effective approach to representing cultural encounters by weaving together affect, cognition, and meaning. In the realm of cultural anthropology and ethnography, such collaborations between artists, anthropologists, and computational experts are expanding the modes of communicating knowledge about people, habitats, and places, which are so central to issues such as climate change and sustainability. These joint efforts give rise to sensual experiences that are increasingly evident in the dynamic settings of galleries and museums, illustrating an expanded sensorium of ethnographic knowledge that articulates cultural meanings in vibrant, interactive formats. 142 Drawing cross-cultural insights on human-water relationships in the Okanagan, the exhibition emerged as a rich tapestry of sensual media, shaping both composition and reception. Howard and Mawyer’s (2015) classification of digital ethnography helps locate how this approach is used in the collaborative Waterways research and exhibition design, underlining how digital advancements in human-computer interaction and affective computing embody the sensual complexity of cultural experiences. This trend toward sensory ethnography enables researchers to remain acutely attuned to how knowledge is expressed by participants in sensual and nonverbal manners. Moreover, in the realm of media art, the challenge extends into the aesthetic domain in terms of how to aesthetically represent the sensual knowledge encountered and gathered through ethnographic practice. Within the Waterways exhibit, this focus narrows to an aesthetic contemplation of water, as expressed by evaluation participants and revealed by the environmental context of the Okanagan. The integration of sensory ethnography with Indigenous ways of knowing promises significant advancements in scholarly research. This cross-disciplinary approach not only equips researchers with innovative tools but also deepens the cultural resonance of academic inquiry. It extends ethnographic boundaries and champions a recognition of Indigenous intellectual traditions that align with principles of equity and respect. As we navigate the intricate interplay between the sensory and the cognitive, these methodologies are crucial in finding pathways toward more inclusive, collaborative, and holistic research paradigms. The visual matrix method applied to the Waterways exhibition created a conducive environment for dialogue and fostered a comprehensive appreciation of water’s multifaceted significance. It also served as a powerful catalyst for collective interaction, sparking a rich exchange of knowledge, insights, and emotional connections. By bridging the sensory with the 143 cognitive, the visual matrix method augmented intellectual engagement with academic content as well as enhanced the emotive resonance within a participatory audience. Importantly, it was effective in transcending beyond an evaluative tool in Waterways to serve as a reflective experience, fluid and transformative, akin to the water it aimed to represent. 5.6 Conclusion The evaluation of the Waterways exhibition using the visual matrix method provides evidence of the enriching potential of sensory ethnography in articulating the nuanced relationship between humans and water. Through the creation of digital media and art, Waterways enhances our understanding of cultural experiences, connecting affect, cognition, and meaning in a tapestry of human-water interactions. The collaborative synergy between disciplines, which bridged art, anthropology, and technology, transcends traditional communication forms, inviting audiences into a multi-sensory engagement that deepens the resonance of ethnographic narratives within museum spaces. Application of the Visual Matrix method proved effective in evaluating the cultural imaginaries of Waterways, demonstrating its potential to unlock deeper insights into the sensory dimensions of digital artistic installations. This reflective and immersive technique not only supports the pursuit of knowledge but also aligns with the concept of inclusivity and honouring diverse ways of knowing (Dulic et al., 2023). Fostering this methodological exploration enables us to cultivate a richer, more empathetic understanding of our complex relationship with the world, paving the way for future research that is both holistically informed and culturally attuned. 144 Chapter 6: Conclusion 6.1 Synopsis This research set out to examine cross-cultural collaboration in the unceded territory of the Syilx Okanagan First Nation in British Columbia. Carried out in the context of the “Waterways, Past, Present, and Future” Project on human-water relations in the Okanagan, the research resulted in four distinct yet interconnected inquiries, each exploring different aspects of cross-cultural collaboration on water stewardship. The first (Chapter 2) presents a case study on the restoration of sockeye salmon through a tripartite Syilx-Federal-Provincial co-management arrangement; the second (Chapter 3) examines the divergent and convergent perspectives of the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities on water stewardship and implications for an ‘ethical space’ of engagement; the third (Chapter 4) explores the intersection of Western-oriented co-design and Indigenous research methodologies applied in the Waterways research and exhibition; and the fourth (Chapter 5) presents an evaluation of the Waterways exhibition and its effectiveness in creating a reflective space to engage with diverse water ontologies. Together, the four inquiries offer a broad view of the complexities and nuances of cross-cultural collaboration in the Okanagan. Four main themes surface from the research: (1) ethical space of engagement as a theoretical and practical concept for cross-cultural relations; (2) Syilx inherent rights: the undercurrent of cross-cultural collaboration; (3) traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept; and (4) two-eyed seeing as an approach for bridging cultural and methodological divides. This chapter elaborates on these themes and discusses the implications for collaborative environmental practice in a cross-cultural Indigenous setting. It concludes with a discussion of study limitations and ideas for future research. 145 6.1.1 Ethical Space of Engagement – Theoretical and Practical Concepts for Cross-cultural Relations Across the research presented in this dissertation, ethical space appears as a paradigm in facilitating cross-cultural collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Rooted in the seminal work of Willie Ermine (2007), ethical space refers to the deliberate creation of a shared dialogic realm where disparate worldviews and knowledge systems can interact with respect and equity, transcending physical and conceptual boundaries. Research findings suggest that ethical space of engagement can be operationalized across temporal and spatial levels, allowing Indigenous and Western perspectives to coexist, interact, and enrich each other. In the context of environmental management, as illustrated in Chapter 2, ethical space is implicitly applied in the collaborative efforts to restore Okanagan Sockeye salmon. Early on, a critical mass of Syilx, federal and provincial government partners coalesced around a common space of interests and objectives where disparate knowledge systems interacted and sometimes conflicted. As goals were achieved, this space solidified to the extent that newcomers that disrupted the space were conveniently exited by the group. Partners navigated and reconciled the complexities of power imbalances, jurisdictional overlaps, and the application of TEK and Western scientific methodologies in the conceptual and physical spaces of the tri-partite coalition and ad hoc working groups. The co-management arrangement – with its emphasis on full consensus among partners – aligns with Nelson and Wilson’s (2018) description of ethical space as a realm where diverse worldviews meet as equals. The conflict that arose and was addressed in the co-management structure, is a process that is embraced openly in an ethical space framework (Bridge, 2023a; Nadeau, 2022). 146 Chapter 3 focuses on the preconditions of ethical space by identifying the divergent perspectives of Syilx and non-Indigenous participants as they relate to water governance and stewardship. The study unveiled the large ontological and legal/institutional gap that exists between the Syilx and settler communities and the relevance of Indigenous rights for effective cross-cultural collaboration on water. The divergent perspectives between Syilx and non-Indigenous participants highlight the potential value in forming an ethical space for fostering dialogue and engagement on these challenging and intractable issues. This neutral space can serve to discuss historical injustices and progress towards more inclusive governance models, reflecting ethical space principles as suggested by Martin et al. (2017) on recognizing Indigenous peoples’ unique rights and perspectives. Chapter 4 offers a more explicit exploration of ethical space within the framework of conducting cross-cultural research. The Waterways project, with its focus on Western co-design and Indigenous methodologies, required an ethical, collaborative working space that respected Syilx and Western worldviews and knowledge systems and allowed Waterways to be both methodologically robust and culturally sensitive and relevant. In aiming to decolonize methodologies and practices in research and design and challenging traditional, Western-centric approaches, Waterways created a space where both Western and Indigenous methodologies could coexist and inform each other, in line with Ermine’s (2007) conceptualization of ethical space as a means to navigate the intersection of Indigenous and Western thought, as well as with Latulippe & Klenk’s (2020) contention on the need to rebalance power dynamics in knowledge creation. Chapter 5 reflects ethical space at two levels. First, the focus on sensory and emotional responses in the context of the “Waterways: Past, Present and Future” exhibition itself can be 147 conceptualized as an ethical space. The exhibition’s design, integrating sensory experiences with Indigenous ways of knowing, facilitated a shared learning and appreciation of diverse cultural perspectives on water. Second, the visual matrix methodology used in the Waterways evaluation created an ethical space of reflection on different ways of knowing and values related to water. This application aligns with Sorrells’ (2020) model of intercultural praxis, offering a lens to understand and navigate the complexities of ethical space. As illustrated across the research, the spatial and temporal dimensions of ethical space engagement help us understand the breadth and depth of this concept and highlight the versatility and adaptability of ethical space in a spectrum of contexts and timeframes. The spatial dimension of ethical space engagement ranges from micro-level settings, such as a museum evaluation, to macro-level applications, like regional water stewardship. In Chapter 5, the Waterways exhibition presents an example of ethical space in a confined, controlled environment. Here, ethical space is manifested in a sensory ethnographic display, creating an intimate setting where visitors engage with and appreciate diverse cultural perspectives on water. The application demonstrates the potential of ethical space to facilitate deep, personal engagement and reflection within a limited physical space. In contrast, Chapters 2 and 3, dealing with the restoration of the Okanagan Sockeye salmon and water stewardship in British Columbia, respectively, illustrate the application of ethical space on a broader, more complex scale. Here, the concept encompasses entire ecosystems and communities, transcending individual interactions to include regional governance, collaborative management, and long-term ecological and cultural sustainability. This expansive application demonstrates how ethical space can operate effectively in complex, multi-stakeholder environments. 148 The temporal aspect of ethical space engagement ranges from short-term interactions to multi-decade collaborations. In the context of the museum evaluation, ethical space is enacted over a brief period. This short-term engagement, despite its limited duration, has the potential to leave a lasting impact on participants, fostering immediate but profound reflection and learning. This example demonstrates how ethical space can be established and experienced within a constrained timeframe. In contrast, the Okanagan Sockeye salmon restoration project exemplifies long-term ethical space engagement. Spanning over two decades, this extended timeframe allows for the development of deep relationships, trust, and mutual understanding. Long-term engagements provide the opportunity for ongoing dialogue, iterative learning, and the evolution of collaborative practice. This temporal scale underscores the durability and depth that ethical space can achieve over time, allowing for transformation in perspectives and praxis. Collectively, the research suggests that ethical space concepts extend beyond theoretical discourse, holding practical implications for research methodologies, environmental management, governance, and cultural education. Together they illustrate how ethical space engagement can act as a step toward more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable practices in contexts marked by Indigenous and non-Indigenous interactions, aligning with the broader literature on ethical space and intercultural collaboration (e.g., Abu et al., 2019; Bridge, 2023; Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2018; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022). Addressing and rebalancing power dynamics, as argued by Latulippe and Klenk (2020), is central to establishing authentic ethical space, and maintaining such a space requires a long-term commitment to dialogue, learning, and adaptation, resonating with Nadeau’s (2022) identification of ethical space competencies. 149 6.1.2 Syilx Inherent Rights – The Undercurrent of Cross-Cultural Collaboration Syilx’s inherent rights are a common thread across the research. Each study reflects the imperative for recognizing Indigenous rights, moving from passive inclusion in existing colonial frameworks to novel institutional arrangements that embed Syilx rights, self-determination, and leadership. Chapter 2 illustrates this point through a case study on the tri-partite co-management involving the Syilx Okanagan Nation and federal and provincial governments in managing Okanagan sockeye salmon. The research concludes that effective collaboration hinged on the recognition of the Okanagan Nation Alliance as a legitimate government with decision-making powers equal to those of the provincial and federal governments. The fact that securing a Memorandum of Understanding would take five years speaks to the complexity and challenge of establishing new institutions that recognize Syilx rights and harmonize Indigenous and Western bureaucratic frameworks. This case also demonstrates the difficulty of maintaining these new structures in the face of colonial biases and discrimination. The sockeye salmon partnership experience aligns with the literature’s call for respecting Indigenous sovereignty and challenging colonial legacies in environmental governance (Coulthard, 2014; Wolfe, 2006). The analysis of Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives on water stewardship similarly raises Indigenous inherent rights as a central issue. Syilx voices referred to the relevant historical and legal contexts (1793 Royal Proclamation, 1982 Constitution Act, Supreme Court rulings) and implications for water stewardship in the unceded Okanagan territory. Non-Indigenous participants call for greater Syilx inclusion in existing governance structures with infrequent mention of the potential significance of Indigenous rights to water. Analysis of the Waterways research and museum exhibition raises the importance of respecting Indigenous rights in both cultural representation, intellectual property, and ethical 150 research practices. The Waterways methodological approach focused on ensuring that research outcomes were both beneficial and sanctioned by the Indigenous communities involved, which resonates with the need for decolonizing research methodologies, as emphasized by Smith (2012) and advocated by others (Chilisa, 2017; Chilisa & Denborough, 2019; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). The Waterways exhibition’s design and content, which is aimed at honoring Indigenous intellectual traditions and cultural rights, presents an educational space that respects Indigenous governance over their cultural narratives and knowledge. It also serves as a model for inclusive and respectful cultural representation, aligning with the scholarly literature on the importance of respecting Indigenous intellectual property and cultural rights (D. McGregor, 2014b; L. T. Smith, 2012). 6.1.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge – a Collaborative Concept Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) as a holistic practice-knowledge-belief system emerged and permeated throughout the research, which is to be expected given the subject of the investigation. As Canadian scholar Deborah McGregor (2021) notes, TEK represents a way of being – it is “inseparable from the people who hold it.” Moreover, TEK is a recurrent theme in the natural resources and environmental science literature (Berkes, 2018; Houde, 2007; K. P. Whyte, 2013), which is utilized as a tool for Aboriginal influence (Bowie, 2013; Houde, 2007; D. McGregor, 2014a) and the assertion of Aboriginal rights in environmental management regimes (D. McGregor, 2014a). TEK emerges as both a catalyst and facilitator in the Syilx-led sockeye salmon restoration program. By contributing essential knowledge on ecosystem functions, it facilitated the tripartite collaboration. More importantly, restoring sockeye salmon was a cultural 151 imperative for the Syilx people, intertwined with their holistic sense of responsibility to the land, water, and fish. In this way, TEK, as a belief and value system, was the catalyst for collaboration. However, balancing TEK and Western science contributions presented barriers, reflecting broader issues of epistemological differences, colonial legacies, and institutional biases (Agrawal, 1995; Berkes, 2018; Houde, 2007; Nadasdy, 1999; N. J. Turner et al., 2000; K. P. Whyte, 2013). Syilx and non-Indigenous perspectives on water stewardship similarly underline the value of TEK, including the need for building cultural competencies related to TEK among the non-Indigenous community. Syilx views also reflect the need for governance structures to be informed by Syilx laws and the revitalization of language, ceremony, and cultural practices for water stewardship. The Waterways research and exhibition further explores the influence of TEK in shaping research methodologies and cultural representations. The mixed-methodology approach in studying human-water relations harmonized Western scientific methods with Indigenous paradigms inherent in TEK. Through a sensory ethnographic approach, the Waterways exhibition showcased the deep cultural connections to water, demonstrating TEK’s potential in educational and cultural contexts. The research suggests that TEK can be viewed as a collaborative construct in research and practice, consistent with Whyte (2013). Findings demonstrate how the Syilx and non-Indigenous communities can continuously learn from each other, from how they view “knowledge,” and from how their different approaches can be applied to better steward the natural world. The sockeye salmon tripartite collaboration, however, demonstrates the practical challenges of harmonizing differing worldviews and knowledge systems. Western empirical and objective epistemologies contrasted with Indigenous knowledge systems that are holistic, 152 relational, and encompass spiritual ontologies. This dichotomy suggests a nuanced approach in research, environmental management, and governance, underscoring the importance of respecting and integrating these diverse intellectual and cultural traditions. 6.1.4 Two-Eyed Seeing as an Approach for Bridging Cultural and Methodological Divides The challenge of bridging cultural and methodological divides is a theme woven through the research, reflecting diverging epistemological, axiological, and ontological perspectives about human-water relations. The challenge is compounded by the legacy of colonization and entrenched systemic barriers, which are manifested as institutional biases and epistemological hierarchies that have historically marginalized Indigenous knowledge systems. These barriers highlight the enduring effects of historical injustices, racism, and related traumas, as well as the rigidity of existing institutional structures rooted in Western paradigms and incongruent with Indigenous governance models and knowledge systems. ‘Two-eyed seeing’ is an emerging approach in environmental contexts aimed at addressing these cultural and institutional divides (Reid et al., 2021). The method involves viewing a situation from a Western eye and an Indigenous eye in a binocular way to “the benefit of all” (Bartlett et al., 2012), rejecting knowledge domination and assimilation (Hatcher et al., 2009). Importantly, it counters the common conception that TEK can simply be “integrated” with Western science (D. McGregor, 2021b; Nadasdy, 1999, 2005; S. Wilson et al., 2019) and opens up possibilities for reimaging new institutions and arrangements (see Figure 6.1). The outcome of a two-eyed seeing approach is reflected in the Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group (COBTWG), which is an amalgam of the Syilx, provincial and federal 153 government partners as described in Chapter 2. Notably, COBTWG drew from both TEK and Western science, recognizing the strengths of each and leading to innovations such as the Fish Water Management Tool. Figure 6.1 The Concept of Two-Eyed Seeing, adapted from the Institute for Integrative Science & Health – IISH (n.d.) Two-eyed seeing, as a method, was explicitly applied to analyze Syilx and non-Indigenous perspectives on water stewardship and delve into the subtleties and intricacies inherent in the worldviews and lived experiences of Syilx and Western communities. In doing so, it revealed both divergences and convergences in views that can inform ethical space dialogue and offer an opportunity to reimagine new institutions. Waterways research methods and subsequent museum exhibition also applied a two-eyed seeing approach, although not explicitly. For instance, the Waterway team applied a bi-cultural perspective in conducting interviews, data interpretations and presentation of findings, which served to foster cross-cultural learning. As explained in Chapter 4, the goal of Waterways was not to come to a consensus on interpretations of Indigenous and Western thought on water, but to honor and showcase the unique ways of knowing related to each. The process sparked growth Western Knowledge and Ways of Knowing Indigenous Knowledge and Ways of Knowing Binocular Vision: two eyes working together and the possibility of creating something new 154 among the researchers and enriched the project’s intellectual fabric, highlighting its positive impacts. The bridging of intercultural and transdisciplinary ways of knowing was ultimately reflected in the Waterways Museum exhibition, the recorded audio and video of interviewees, and the documentation of the environmental and cultural details of the Okanagan landscape, soundscape, and community. These examples point to the applicability of ‘two-eyed seeing’ as a method (Chapters 3-5) and as an institutional and organizational strategy (Chapter 2). By embracing both Indigenous and Western epistemologies, two-eyed seeing can facilitate a deeper understanding and respect for diverse ways of knowing, move beyond conventional institutional boundaries and the convention of “integration,” and explore novel solutions to human-water relations. The research reflects the practical viability of ‘two-eyed seeing’ and its potential as a paradigmatic approach to collaborative praxis. 6.2 Implications for Cross-Cultural Collaboration Research findings offer insights into cross-cultural collaboration in water stewardship and broader environmental governance in Indigenous contexts, with considerations including: • Shift the paradigm to recognize Indigenous nations as sovereign entities rather than mere stakeholders. Operationally, this could include developing partnership frameworks that respect Indigenous governance structures, building institutional capacity within Indigenous communities to facilitate equitable representation and decision-making power in collaborative initiatives, establishing direct dialogue and relationship building, along with flexible and adaptive engagement strategies to accommodate elements of Indigenous 155 governance systems, building capacity among non-Indigenous partners about Indigenous sovereignty, legal rights, and cultural practices. • Develop novel institutional arrangements that allow for Indigenous and non-Indigenous representation on an equal footing, and/or align Western and Indigenous institutions rather than integrating Indigenous representatives into existing colonial structures. Efforts could involve the creation of collaborative institutional frameworks co-developed with Indigenous partners, the formal recognition and validation of Indigenous knowledge systems alongside Western ones, and the reform of policies and legislation that acknowledge Indigenous rights and knowledge. An example of the latter is the COWTWG, the tripartite institutional structure involving Syilx, federal, and provincial governments, which, while not a legislated body, was formed to restore sockeye salmon populations based on consensus-based decision-making and has been sustained for over two decades. • Redefine the role of TEK as a collaborative concept and a dynamic system of knowledge for mutual learning. This redefinition means viewing TEK not merely as a body of knowledge to be documented or used in parallel to Western science but as an active, equal element in dialogues that shape research, policy, and practice. As a collaborative concept, TEK can contribute to mutual learning processes, where knowledge is co-created, shared, and applied in ways that respect and combine the strengths of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches to understanding and stewarding the natural world. TEK, as a collaborative concept, emphasizes the dynamic and evolving nature of TEK, recognizing it as a living knowledge system that is continually practiced, updated, and interpreted by Indigenous communities. 156 • Apply ethical space of engagement and two-eyed seeing approaches to foster intercultural exchange, dialogue, and learning, relationship building, and co-creation of innovative institutions. Ethical spaces where Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples can come together to exchange perspectives, knowledge, and experiences can be both physical and conceptual, and vary across spatial and temporal dimensions. They can range from intimate, controlled environments like a museum exhibit evaluation to a partnership developed over a twenty-year timeframe, as in the case of the sockeye salmon collaboration. However, both ethical space and two-eyed seeing approaches should be founded on principles of mutual respect, equality, and openness, where all voices are equally valued and diverse worldviews can engage in meaningful dialogue. Their design and facilitation require a commitment to creating a neutral, shared ground that supports the coexistence and mutual enrichment of different knowledge systems. Applying ethical space and two-eyed seeing can be adapted to specific spatial needs—from localized, immediate interactions to broader, long-term collaborations—and recognizing the temporal aspects, from short-term engagements to decades-long partnerships. 6.3 Limitations The inherent positionality of the researcher, as delineated in the Methods Section, introduces a notable limitation to this study. My external perspective related to the Syilx Indigenous community inherently biases the epistemological approach employed for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. This limitation is manifested through challenges in cultural comprehension, difficulties in engaging with certain Syilx knowledge holders, and 157 complexities surrounding consent and data ownership. To mitigate these issues, I directly collaborated with Indigenous scholars, who contributed to refining the research’s positionality and epistemological foundation. However, as the author of this dissertation, the intrinsic limitations of my position as a non-Indigenous researcher remain. The political nature of research as a limitation deserves particular attention. In the study on water stewardship and ethical space, data that were gathered at the outset by the ONA-non-Indigenous team was withheld by the ONA due to intellectual property concerns and the political intricacies of water governance and Indigenous rights. This resulted in a pivot in the study focus, scope, and method, which proved time-consuming but ultimately preserved political relations with ONA and revealed significant perspectives not covered in the original interviews. However, insightful data from key individuals interviewed by ONA could not be used in the analysis. Methodologically, a few limitations are noteworthy. First, inherent in the qualitative research approach is sample size, which collectively influenced the scope and depth of insights gathered. In the water stewardship study, I was unable to use data gathered by ONA as noted in the previous paragraph, which would have increased the depth of insights gathered on Indigenous perspectives. The reliance on introductions to establish connections with knowledge keepers, coupled with their commitments and responsibilities within their communities, presented a logistical barrier that limited the feasibility of employing snowball sampling to its full potential. This restriction points to the unique challenges faced when conducting research in partnership with Indigenous communities. A second methodological issue relates to the visual matrix method. While this approach can offer profound insights into the emotional and imaginative responses of museum visitors, it has limitations as an evaluatory tool. Its reliance on subjective interpretations complicates the 158 generation of universally applicable insights and presents challenges in quantifying the rich, qualitative data produced. The method’s effectiveness can be further constrained by participant selection bias, potentially skewing results if the group is not representative of the broader visitor demographic. Moreover, the complexity of analyzing symbolic and metaphorical responses demands a high level of expertise, limiting accessibility for evaluators without specialized training. These limitations point to the need to have complementary evaluation approaches to understand the broader impact of the Waterways exhibition experiences. A further limitation of the research was highlighted in Chapter 2 on the sockeye salmon restoration efforts. While the study uncovered characteristics of the collaboration that led to the success of the tripartite arrangement, it was limited to one case. A more profound analysis would be required to understand why the restoration of Sockeye succeeded in the Okanagan while others in the Columbia basin, also involving Indigenous nations, failed and why experts deemed the Okanagan initiative to be a “faint hope” and “illusion” at the outset. 6.4 Reflections and Future Research “Reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians, from an Aboriginal perspective, also requires reconciliation with the natural world. If human beings resolve problems between themselves but continue to destroy the natural world, then reconciliation remains incomplete. This is a perspective that we as Commissioners have repeatedly heard: that reconciliation will never occur unless we are also reconciled with the earth.” Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Y2Y, 2021) Reflecting on my dissertation trajectory, I am struck by my immense intellectual growth while also simultaneously aware of how little I understand Indigenous ways, as reflected in TEK. 159 The depth of this learning is clear when looking back at one of my early papers on TEK and Western science. Indigenous scholars highlight that TEK is something to be lived and experienced and cannot be separated from those who hold it. As a non-Indigenous researcher, I recognize that my understanding will always be limited, and at best, I can aspire to appreciate TEK concepts and attempt to use them in my work. I am also immensely grateful to the Waterways team and Syilx scholars, who gave me privileged access to Syilx wisdom, a circle of relations that enabled my research. A stark lesson from my research is the complexity of reconciliation in the context of Canada’s history of colonization and its lingering impacts. At the time of completing this dissertation, reports from the Indigenous-led Yellowhead Institute indicate a “glacial pace” in addressing Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC’s) 94 Calls to Action, suggesting a completion timeline of over four decades (K. G. Malone, 2023). This report, coupled with the TRC’s call for the need to reconcile with the natural world, is, on one hand, disheartening and, on the other, unsurprising based on my learnings. The common theme of Indigenous sovereignty and inherent rights in the unceded Okanagan territory remains persistently unsettling in my mind. How do we reconcile these rights, given the settlement and development of the region? How do Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities coexist while respecting these inherent claims and given the legal and jurisdictional complexities? These questions become even more personal as I consider my family’s life on what we consider “our” property in the Okanagan that we “own.” My initial optimism about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in British Columbia as a significant step forward was quickly tempered by my conversations with Syilx participants, who highlighted DRIPA as merely one tool among many required for their 160 aspirations. The 2014 Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Title Supreme Court decision, noted by Syilx participants, is a real-life example of the daunting task ahead in disentangling and integrating provincial, federal, and Indigenous legal systems – and the Okanagan context is appreciably much more complex and intractable. Another lingering question relates to TEK and its applicability in our modern world and the societal issues we face. The literature positions TEK as both ancient and timely, embodying today’s current focus on complex adaptive systems theory (such as interconnectedness, holism, adaptation, emergence, feedback loops, and non-linearity). Fikret Berkes’ (2018) “Sacred Ecology” was an invaluable reference during my inquiries, offering profound insights into TEK and social-ecological challenges. However, TEK, despite its strengths, isn’t a panacea in our contemporary world. Moreover, big questions remain on how the non-Indigenous community works with TEK concepts, as noted above. My academic advisors cautioned against stereotyping Indigenous people as monolithic and romanticizing them as environmental stewards, perspectives presented by authors like Shepard Krech (1999) in “The Ecological Indian” and Thomas King (2012) in “The Inconvenient Indian.” I struggled with this issue in my work, particularly as a researcher constantly aware of my non-Indigenous status. I was careful to respectfully reflect the voices of the Syilx people without judgment, relying on my Syilx colleagues for advice, guidance, and orientation. Differences between traditional Indigenous and conventional Western worldviews as it pertains to time also struck me. The Indigenous emphasis on long-term sustainability, encapsulated in the ‘seven generations’ principle, starkly contrasts with the short-term focus prevalent in Western political cycles and project planning and implementation. Projects like the 161 sockeye salmon program, still considered ‘just a baby’ in its 25th year by the Okanagan Nation Alliance, are an example of this deep temporal divide. As my research draws to a close, I am confronted with broad themes such as epistemological pluralism, the ethics and practicality of coexistence, and the democratization of Indigenous knowledge, among others. These themes offer an infinite spectrum of possibilities for future inquiry. As to the work presented here and future research, two examples are noteworthy. First, the Okanagan Lake Watershed Collaborative Leadership Table, a pioneering Syilx-led forum bringing together local municipal leaders and Syilx chiefs on water stewardship, offers a singular opportunity to analyze ethical space and two-eyed seeing in action. Second, WaterFutures, a joint venture between UBCO, the Okanagan Basin Water Board, and local school districts in the co-design of 3D games on water, can be used as a laboratory to explore ethical space engagement and the application of TEK in an educational environment. 162 Bibliography Abu, R., Reed, M. G., & Jardine, T. D. (2019). Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. International Journal of Water Resources Development. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1558050 Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and change, 26(3), 413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x AHA Centre. (2018). Capacity Bridging. AHA Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://caan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Capacity-Bridging-1.pdf Alberta Energy Regulator. (2017). Voices of understanding: looking through the window. Retrieved February, 10, 2020. Alexander, T. M., & Dewey, J. (1987). John Dewey's theory of art, experience, and nature: the horizons of feeling. Albany: State University of New York Press. Alfred, T. (2005). Wasase: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom: University of Toronto Press. Altman, N. (2002). Sacred water: the spiritual source of life: Paulist Press. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 995-1004. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 163 Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2007). Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Governance. Vancouver: UBC Press. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86-98. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002 Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R., Charles, A., Davidson-Hunt, I., . . . Wollenberg, E. (2009). Adaptive Co-Management for Social-Ecological Complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95-102. doi:10.1890/070089 Armstrong, J. (2010). Indigeneity: The heart of development with culture and identity. In Towards an Alternative Development Paradigm: Indigenous People’s Self-Determined Development. Baguio City, Philippines: TEBTEBBA Foundation. Armstrong, J. C. (2009). Constructing Indigeneity: Sylix Okanagan Oraliture and Tmixwcentrism. Universitätsbibliothek, Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:gbv:9-001322-9 Armstrong, J. C. (2018). A Single Strand: The Nsyilxcin Speaking People’s Tmixw Knowledge as a Model for Sustaining a Life-Force Place. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge (pp. 95-108). Baird, J., Baird, J., Plummer, R., Plummer, R., Bodin, Ö., Bodin, Ö., . . . Stockholm Resilience, C. (2016). Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive co-management. Regional Environmental Change, 16(3), 747-758. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0790-5 164 Ballantyne, A. G. (2016). Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory? Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change, 7(3), 329-344. doi:10.1002/wcc.392 Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., . . . Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196-203. Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2, 331-340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8 Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology: University of Chicago Press. Battiste, M. (2005). Indigenous knowledge: Foundations for first nations. WINHEC: International Journal of Indigenous Education Scholarship(1), 1-17. Battiste, M. (2017). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit: UBC press. Beaulieu, C. R. (2021). The Historic and Contemporary Permanence of the Doctrine of Discovery in Canada. Undergraduate Research Journal, 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.32396/usurj.v7i1.496 Becklumb, P. (2013). Federal and provincial jurisdiction to regulate environmental issues: Library of Parliament= Bibliothèque du Parlement. Berglund, O., & Schmidt, D. (2020). Extinction rebellion and climate change activism: breaking the law to change the world: Springer. 165 Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., & Pohl, C. (2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice: Campus Verlag. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Historical social research (Köln), 37(4 (142)), 191-222. Retrieved from https://go.exlibris.link/X20sb85D Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 621-630. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x Berkes, F. (2007). Adaptive Co-Manageent and Complexity: Exploring the Many Faces of Co-Management. In. Vancouver: UBC Press. Berkes, F. (2009a). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1692-1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001 Berkes, F. (2009b). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151-156. doi:10.1080/03014220909510568 Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred ecology (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Berkes, F., Armitage, D., & Doubleday, N. (2007). Synthesis: adapting, innovating, evolving. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes, & N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive comanagement: collaboration, learning and multilevel governance. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Collection, C. M., & Cambridge Core, E. B. A. e. C. C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge;New York;: Cambridge University Press. 166 Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge;New York;: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., George, P., & Preston, R. J. (1991). Co-management: the evolution in theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives, 12-18. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/45031306 Bezener, A., Dunn, M., Richardson, H., Dyer, O., Hawes, R., & Hayes, T. (2004). South Okanagan–Similkameen conservation program: a multi-partnered, multi-species, multi-scale approach to conservation of species at risk. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference, March. Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design issues, 28(3), 101-116. Blanchet, R., Willows, N., Johnson, S., Initiatives, O. N. S. R., & Batal, M. (2022). Enhancing cultural food security among the Syilx Okanagan adults with the reintroduction of Okanagan sockeye salmon. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 47(2), 124-133. Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Chang, 19. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002 Boelens, R., Getches, D., & Guevara-Gil, A. (2010). Out of the mainstream: Water rights, politics and identity: Routledge. 167 Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009). The theory-generating expert interview: epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In Interviewing experts (pp. 43-80): Springer. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, T., Nguinguiri, J. C., & Ndangang, V. (2000). Co-management of natural resources. In: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., & Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the conservation of nature. Protected area governance and management, 7, 169-206. doi:https://doi.org/10.22459/PAGM.04.2015.07 Bos, J., & Brown, R. R. (2012). Reflections on research into the OurRiver-Cooks River Sustainability Initiative. Paper presented at the Stormwater 2012. Bowie, R. (2013). Indigenous Self-Governance and the Deployment of Knowledge in Collaborative Environmental Management in Canada. Journal of Canadian studies, 47(1), 91-121. doi:10.3138/jcs.47.1.91 Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). The SAGE handbook of action research. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In I. H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71): American Psychological Association. Bridge, G. (Producer). (2023a). Getting Ready-Ethical Space: A framework for indigenous relations. Retrieved from https://gwenbridge.com/getting-ready-ethical-space-a-framework-for-indigenous-relations/ 168 Bridge, G. (Producer). (2023b). What is Ethical Space? An intro to Indigenous authority in conservation. Exploring Ethical Space: Land-based reconciliation in the Y2Y geography. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Uft1MlGzc Brown, R. R., Deletic, A., & Wong, T. H. (2015). Interdisciplinarity: How to catalyse collaboration. Nature, 525(7569), 315-317. Bulkeley, H. (2014). Transnational climate change governance: Cambridge University Press. Burgner, R. L. (1991). Life history of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka. In C. Groot & L. Margolis (Eds.), Pacific salmon life histories (pp. 1-117). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press. Burkett, I. (2012). An introduction to co-design. Sydney: Knode, 12. Burn, D. H., Mansour, R., Zhang, K., & Whitfield, P. H. (2011). Trends and variability in extreme rainfall events in British Columbia. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 36(1), 67-82. Cantu, D., & Selloni, D. (2013). From engaging to empowering people: a set of co-design experiments with a service design perspective. Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 325-350. Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., . . . Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2). Castellano, M. B. (2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world, 21-36. Castells, M. (2009). The Rise of the network society Volume 1 (Vol. 1). 169 Castleden, H., Hart, C., Cunsolo, A., Harper, S., & Martin, D. (2017). Reconciliation and relationality in water research and management in Canada: Implementing indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies. Water policy and governance in Canada, 69-95. Castro, A. P., & Nielsen, E. (2001). Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science and Policy, 4(4), 229-239. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3 CDAC Network. (n.d.). Capacity Bridging. Retrieved from https://www.cdacnetwork.org/capacity-bridging Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), 1437-1454. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90030-2 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis: sage. Charmaz, K. (2017a). Constructivist grounded theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 299 - 300. Charmaz, K. (2017b). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34-45. Chilisa, B. (2017). Decolonising transdisciplinary research approaches: an African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 12(5), 813-827. doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0461-1 Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies: Sage publications. 170 Chilisa, B., & Denborough, D. (2019). Decolonising research: An interview with Bagele Chilisa. International journal of narrative therapy and community work(1), 12-18. Christie, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary research and Aboriginal knowledge. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 35, 78-89. Classen, C. (2023). Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures: Taylor & Francis. Clogg, J., Askew, H., Kung, E., & Smith, G. (2016). Indigenous legal traditions and the future of environmental governance in Canada. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 29, 227-256. Cohen, S., Neilsen, D., Smith, S., Neale, T., Taylor, B., Barton, M., . . . Langsdale, S. (2006). Learning with Local Help: Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change and Water Management in the Okanagan Region, British Columbia, Canada. Climatic Change, 75(3), 331-358. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-6336-6 Coombes, B., Johnson, J. T., & Howitt, R. (2014). Indigenous geographies III: Methodological innovation and the unsettling of participatory research. Progress in Human Geography, 38(6), 845-854. Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667-1676. Cosgrove, W. J., & Loucks, D. P. (2015). Water management: Current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resources Research, 51(6), 4823-4839. Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need: The MIT Press. 171 Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis: Minnesota. Craig, D. (2002). Recognising Indigenous rights through co-management regimes : Canadian and Australian experiences. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 6(6), 199-254. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social studies of science, 35(5), 703-722. Curran, D. (2019). Indigenous processes of consent: Repoliticizing water governance through legal pluralism. Water, 11(3), 571. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030571 Curry, J., Donker, H., & Krehbiel, R. (2014). Land claim and treaty negotiations in British Columbia, Canada: Implications for First Nations land and self‐governance. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 58(3), 291-304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12088 De Keere, K. (2020). Finding the moral space: Rethinking morality, social class and worldviews. Poetics, 79, 101415. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101415 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education by John Dewey. Project Gutenberg. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, Minton: Balch & company. Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. New York: Berkley Publishing Group. DFO. (2017). Review of potential impacts associated with recent and proposed Okanagan sockeye salmon fry introductions to Skaha and Okanagan Lakes. (2017/031). Dieleman, H. (2012). Transdisciplinary artful doing in spaces of experimentation and imagination. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 3. 172 Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 302(5652), 1907-1912. doi:10.1126/science.1091015 Drawson, A. S., Toombs, E., & Mushquash, C. J. (2017). Indigenous research methods: A systematic review. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2), 5. du Plessis, A. (2023). Water resources from a global perspective. In South Africa’s Water Predicament: Freshwater’s Unceasing Decline (pp. 1-25): Springer. Dulic, A., Angel, J., & Sheppard, S. (2016). Designing futures: Inquiry in climate change communication. Futures, 81, 54-67. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.01.004 Dulic, A., Schroth, O., Shirley, M., & Sheppard, S. (2011). Future Delta Motivating Climate Change Action Grounded in Place. In Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2011 (pp. 228-234). Dulic, A., Thorogood, M., Sam, M., Correia, M., Alexis, S., & Armstrong, J. (2023). Okanagan Waterways Past, Present and Future: Approaching Sustainability through Immersive Museum Exhibition. Sustainability, 15(22), 16109. Dulic, A., & Thoroood, M. (2020). Water Ways Visualization Computational Reflexivity for Sustainability Action. Paper presented at the ISEA2020: 26th International Symposium on Electronic Art. Ellen, R. F., Parkes, P., & Bicker, A. (2000). Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: critical anthropological perspectives (Vol. 5): Psychology Press. Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous LJ, 6, 193. Evans, G. L. (2017). Grounded Theory: Study of Aboriginal Nations. The grounded theory review, 16(1). Retrieved from https://go.exlibris.link/nddQGWST 173 Fabricius, C., & Currie, B. (2015). Adaptive co-management. In Adaptive management of social-ecological systems (pp. 147-179): Springer. Finlayson, J. G., & Rees, D. H. (2023). Jürgen habermas. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. doi:10.5751/es-03610-150420 Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour, 30. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Freire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Toward a sociology of education (pp. 374-386): Routledge. Froggett, L. (2020). Imagery and association in a group-based method: The visual matrix. In A Handbook of Visual Methods in Psychology (pp. 277-300): Routledge. Froggett, L., Manley, J., & Roy, A. N. (2015). The visual matrix method: Imagery and affect in a group-based research setting. Paper presented at the Forum: Qualititive Social Research. Froggett, L., Muller, L., & Bennett, J. (2019). The work of the audience: visual matrix methodology in museums. Cultural Trends, 28(2-3), 162-176. doi:10.1080/09548963.2019.1617939 Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation. AMBIO, 22(2/3), 151-156. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American political science review, 98(2), 341-354. Getches, D. H. (2015). Water law in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing. 174 Goetze, T. C. (2005). Empowered co-management: towards power-sharing and indigenous rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC. Anthropologica, 247-265. Good Water, D. (2018). Okanagan Syilx historical and contemporary salmon distribution : underpinning social and governance structures. (Master of Arts Master’s Thesis). University of British Columbia, Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0365707 (Dissertation/Thesis) Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it: Rodale. Government of British Columbia. (n/d-a). Improvement Districts. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/improvement-districts-governance-bodies/improvement-districts Government of British Columbia. (n/d-b). Regional districts in B.C. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/facts-framework/systems/regional-districts Government of British Columbia. (n/d-c). Water Sustainability Act. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/laws-rules/water-sustainability-act Government of Canada. (1996). Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Retrieved from https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/royal-commission-aboriginal-peoples/Pages/introduction.aspx 175 Government of Canada. (2020). Water governance: federal policy and legislation. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/governance-legislation/federal-policy.html Gratani, M., Sutton, S. G., Butler, J. R., Bohensky, E. L., & Foale, S. (2016). Indigenous environmental values as human values. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 1185811. Graveline, F. J. (2000). Circle as methodology: Enacting an Aboriginal paradigm. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(4), 361-370. doi:10.1080/095183900413304 Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human relations, 38(10), 911-936. Gray, B. (1989). Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco. Green, D. O., Creswell, J. W., Shope, R. J., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Grounded theory and racial/ethnic diversity. The Sage handbook of grounded theory, 472-492. doi:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n22 Groenfeldt, D. (2006). Water development and spiritual values in western and indigenous societies. Water and Indigenous peoples, knowledges of nature, 108-115. Groot, C., & Margolis, L. (1991). Pacific salmon life histories: UBC press. Gullason, K. (2018). The Water Sustainability Act, Groundwater Regulation, and Indigenous Rights to Water: Missed Opportunities and Future Challenges. Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research: Sage publications. Hackett, E. J., Parker, J. N., Conz, D., Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2008). Ecology transformed: NCEAS and changing patterns of ecological research. Scientific collaboration on the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 277-296. 176 Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Johansson, K. (2006). Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol, 34. doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9035-z Haraway, D. (2020). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Feminist theory reader (pp. 303-310): Routledge. Harris, J., Brown, V. A., & Russell, J. (2010). Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination: Taylor & Francis. Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 1(1A). Hasselman, L. (2017). Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what's the difference? Australasian journal of environmental management, 24(1), 31-46. doi:10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857 Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, A., & Marshall, M. (2009). Two-eyed seeing in the classroom environment: Concepts, approaches, and challenges. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(3), 141-153. Hedditch, S., & Vyas, D. (2023). Design Justice in Practice: Community-led Design of an Online Maker Space for Refugee and Migrant Women. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(GROUP), 1-39. Henderson, W. (2020). Indigenous Self-Government in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-self-government Hendry, J. F., & Fitznor, L. (2012). Anthropologists, indigenous scholars and the research endeavour : seeking bridges towards mutual respect. 177 Heydarian, N. M. (2016). Developing theory with the grounded-theory approach and thematic analysis. APS observer, 29. Holley, C., Gunningham, N., Shearing, C., Taylor, Francis eBooks, A. Z., & ebrary, I. (2012). The new environmental governance. Abingdon, Oxon: Earthscan. Hornby, L. (2017). Appropriating the weather: Olafur Eliasson and climate control. Environmental Humanities, 9(1), 60-83. Houde, N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 34. doi:10.5751/ES-02270-120234 Howard, A., & Mawyer, A. (2015). Ethnography in the digital age. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, 1-15. Howes, D. (2010). Sensual relations: Engaging the senses in culture and social theory: University of Michigan Press. Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79-88. Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public management review, 5(3), 401-423. Hyatt, K., & Stockwell, M. (2019). Chasing an Illusion? Successful Restoration of Okanagan River Sockeye Salmon in a Sea of Uncertainty. In C. C. Krueger, Taylor, W. W., Youn, S. (Ed.), From catastrophe to recovery: stories of fishery management success. (pp. 65-100). Bethesda, Md.: American Fisheries Society. 178 Hyatt, K., Withler, R., & Garver, K. (2019). Review of Recent and Proposed Okanagan Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus Nerka) Fry Introductions to Skaha and Okanagan Lakes: History, Uncertainties, and Implications. (Research Document 2018/014). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Retrieved from https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/40779427.pdf Hyatt, K. D., Alexander, C. A., & Stockwell, M. M. (2015). A decision support system for improving “fish friendly” flow compliance in the regulated Okanagan Lake and River System of British Columbia. Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 40(1), 87-110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2014.985510 Hyatt, K. D., & Rankin, D. P. (1999). A habitat based evaluation of Okanagan sockeye salmon escapement objectives: Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat. IISH. (n.d.). Two-Eyed Seeing. Retrieved from http://www.integrativescience.ca/Principles/TwoEyedSeeing/ Indigenous Circle of Experts. (2018). We Rise Together - Achieving Pathway to Canada Target 1 through the creation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas in the spirit and practice of reconciliation. The Indigenous Circle of Experts’ Report and Recommendations. Retrieved from https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/pc/R62-548-2018-eng.pdf Indigenous Foundations. (2009). Terminology. Retrieved from https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/ Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of management review, 30(1), 146-165. 179 Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. (1984). Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Retrieved from https://irc.inuvialuit.com/about-irc/inuvialuit-final-agreement IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Sixth Assessment Report.: Cambridge University Press. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1-10. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism's conception of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 4(6), 141-155. Jelinčić, D. A., Šveb, M., & E. Stewart, A. (2021). Designing sensory museum experiences for visitors’ emotional responses. Museum Management and Curatorship, 37, 513 - 530. Jennings, H. (2019). Anthropocene feminism, companion species, and the MaddAddam trilogy. Contemporary Women's Writing, 13(1), 16-33. Joe, N., Bakker, K., & Harris, L. (2017). Perspectives on the BC Water Sustainability Act: First Nations Respond to Water Governance Reform in British Columbia. Johnson, J. (2016). Columbia River Treaty and the Syilx People. Paper presented at the CBRAC Meeting #4, Cranbrook, BC. https://www.syilx.org/governance/columbia-river-treaty/ Johnson, N., Pearce, T., Breton-Honeyman, K., Etiendem, D. N., & Loseto, L. (2020). Knowledge co-production and co-management of Arctic wildlife. In (Vol. 6, pp. 124-126): Canadian Science Publishing 1840 Woodward Drive, Suite 1, Ottawa, ON K2C 0P7. Jollymore, A., McFarlane, K., & Harris, L. M. (2018). Whose input counts? Evaluating the process and outcomes of public consultation through the BC Water Act Modernization. 180 Critical Policy Studies, 12(4), 381-405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1282377 Kadykalo, A. N., Jeanson, A. L., Cooke, S. J., & Young, N. (2022). Uncertainty, anxiety, and optimism: Diverse perspectives of rainbow and steelhead trout fisheries governance in British Columbia. Environmental challenges (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 9, 100610. doi:10.1016/j.envc.2022.100610 Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965. Keen, M., Brown, V. A., & Dyball, R. (2012). Social learning: a new approach to environmental management. In Social learning in environmental management (pp. 3-21): Routledge. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., Nixon, R., SpringerLink, SpringerLink ebooks - Humanities, S. S., & Law. (2014). The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research (2014 ed.). Singapore: Springer Singapore. Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants: Milkweed editions. Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2007). Participatory action research approaches and methods. Connecting people, participation and place. Abingdon: Routledge, 260. King, E., Smith, M. P., Wilson, P. F., Stott, J., & Williams, M. A. (2023). Creating Meaningful Museums: A Model for Museum Exhibition User Experience. Visitor Studies, 26(1), 59-81. King, T. (2012). The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. 181 Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515-526. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S116-S123. Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, 15(6), 15. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto [Ont.]: University of Toronto Press. Kovach, M. (2010). Conversation Method in Indigenous Research. First peoples child & family review, 5(1), 40-48. doi:10.7202/1069060ar Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts: University of Toronto press. Krech, S. (1999). The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: W. W. Norton. Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: what is it? Automation in construction, 9(4), 409-415. Laborde, S., & Jackson, S. (2022). Living waters or resource? Ontological differences and the governance of waters and rivers. Local Environment, 27(3), 357-374. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2044298 Lackey, R. (1999). Restoring Wild Salmon to the Pacific Northwest: Chasing an Illusion? In P. Koss & M. Katz (Eds.), What We Don't Know about Pacific Northwest Fish Runs: An Inquiry into Decision-Making. Portland: Portland State University. 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. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 42, 7-14. 182 Lavallée, L. F. (2009). Practical Application of an Indigenous Research Framework and Two Qualitative Indigenous Research Methods: Sharing Circles and Anishnaabe Symbol-Based Reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21-40. doi:10.1177/160940690900800103 Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 31, 297-325. Libakova, N. M., & Sertakova, E. A. (2015). The method of expert interview as an effective research procedure of studying the indigenous peoples of the north. doi:https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-2015-8-1-114-129 Lilley, D. (2009). Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design studies, 30(6), 704-720. Linton, J., & Pahl‐Wostl, C. (2023). Drawing from Indigenous ontologies and practices to rethink European water policy. River Research and Applications. Littlechild, D., & Sutherland, C. (2021). Enacting and operationalizing ethical space and twoeyed seeing in Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas and Crown protected and conserved areas (p. 41). In: Guelph, ON: Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership. https …. Malone, K. G. (2023). Progress on Indigenous reconciliation calls to action going at 'glacial pace': report. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yellowhead-trc-calls-to-action-update-1.6689314 Malone, T. W., & Bernstein, M. S. (2022). Handbook of collective intelligence: MIT press. 183 Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Gavin, M. C., & Fulton, D. (2014). Considerations in representing human individuals in social-ecological models. In Understanding society and natural resources (pp. 137-158): Springer, Dordrecht. Marmorek, D., Nelitz, M., Eyzaguirre, J., Murray, C., & Alexander, C. (2019). Adaptive management and climate change adaptation: two mutually beneficial areas of practice. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 55(4), 881-905. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12774 Martin, D. E., Thompson, S., Ballard, M., & Linton, J. (2017). Two-eyed seeing in research and its absence in policy: Little Saskatchewan First Nation Elders' experiences of the 2011 flood and forced displacement. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(4). Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies: Voicing Dissent, 27(76), 203-214. doi:10.1080/14443050309387838 Maurial, M. (1999). Indigenous knowledge and schooling: A continuum between conflict and dialogue. What is indigenous knowledge, 59-77. May, T. J. (2020). Earth Matters on Stage: Ecology and Environment in American Theater: Routledge. McElwee, P., Fernández‐Llamazares, Á., Aumeeruddy‐Thomas, Y., Babai, D., Bates, P., Galvin, K., . . . Ngo, H. T. (2020). Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(9), 1666-1676. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705 184 McGregor, D. (2004). Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable development: Towards coexistence. In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization, 72-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350220720.ch-005 McGregor, D. (2012). Traditional knowledge: Considerations for protecting water in Ontario. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 3(3). McGregor, D. (2014a). Lessons for collaboration involving traditional knowledge and environmental governance in Ontario, Canada. AlterNative : an international journal of indigenous peoples, 10(4), 340-353. doi:10.1177/117718011401000403 McGregor, D. (2014b). Traditional knowledge and water governance: The ethic of responsibility. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 10(5), 493-507. doi:https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2012.3.3.11 McGregor, D. (2018). Reconciliation and environmental justice. Journal of global ethics, 14(2), 222-231. doi:https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.148 McGregor, D. (2021a). First Nations, Traditional Knowledge, and Water Ethics. In Ethical Water Stewardship (pp. 147-163). Cham: Springer International Publishing. McGregor, D. (2021b). Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental governance in Canada. KULA, 5(1), 1-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.148 McGregor, D., Latulippe, N., Whitlow, R., Gansworth, K. L., McGregor, L., & Allen, S. (2023). Towards meaningful research and engagement: Indigenous knowledge systems and great lakes governance. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 49, S22-S31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2023.02.009 McGregor, D., Sritharan, M., & Whitaker, S. (2023). Indigenous Peoples, Sustainable Development, and Ontologies of Water. In S. Hellberg, F. Söderbaum, A. Swain, & J. 185 Öjendal (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Water and Development (1 ed.). Milton: Taylor & Francis Group. McGregor, D., Whitaker, S., & Sritharan, M. (2020). Indigenous environmental justice and sustainability. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 43, 35-40. McGregor, L. (2009). Ontario First Nations perspectives on traditional knowledge: a diagnostic and discussion paper. McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory action research: Sage Publications. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: sage. Miller, R. J. (2010). Discovering indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies: Oxford University Press. Moewaka Barnes, H., Harmsworth, G., Tipa, G., Henwood, W., & McCreanor, T. (2021). Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand: beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice, empowerment and action. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(2), 306-316. Morellato, M. (2008). The crown's constitutional duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal and treaty rights: National Centre for First Nations Governance Ottawa. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty: U of Minnesota Press. Muir, A., Duncan, A., Almack, K., Boucher, N., Dunlop, E., Febria, C., . . . Mattes, W. (2023). Sharing across the space: Introduction to a special issue on bridging Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge systems. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 49, S1-S11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2023.04.001 186 Müller, M. O., Groesser, S. N., & Ulli-Beer, S. (2012). How do we know who to include in collaborative research? Toward a method for the identification of experts. European journal of operational research, 216(2), 495-502. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.014 Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the" integration" of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 1-18. Nadasdy, P. (2003a). Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon: UBC press. Nadasdy, P. (2003b). Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 367-380. doi:https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic634 Nadasdy, P. (2005). The Anti-Politics of TEK: The Institutionalization of Co-Management Discourse and Practice. Anthropologica (Ottawa), 47(2), 215-232. Retrieved from https://go.exlibris.link/5JctMvLL Nadeau, M. M. (2022). Exploring Ethical Space for land use planning in the Upper Columbia region of British Columbia. Nakashima, D., & Krupnik, I. (2018). Indigenous knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation (Vol. 2): Cambridge University Press. Natcher, D., Davis, S., & Hickey, C. . (2005). Co-Management: Managing Relationships, Not Resources. Human organization, 64(3), 240-250. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44127318 Natcher, D. C., Davis, S., & Hickey, C. G. (2005). Co-management: managing relationships, not resources. Human organization, 64(3), 240-250. doi:https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.64.3.23yfnkrl2ylapjxw 187 Nelson, S. E., & Wilson, K. (2018). Understanding barriers to health care access through cultural safety and ethical space: Indigenous people's experiences in Prince George, Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 218, 21-27. Newell, W., & Meek, J. (2003). Complexity and interdisciplinarity. Knowledge management, organizational intelligence and learning, and complexity, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Available online at http://www. eolss. net. Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers. Nikolakis, W., & Hotte, N. (2022). Implementing “ethical space”: An exploratory study of Indigenous‐conservation partnerships. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.580 Notzke, C. (1995). A new perspective in aboriginal natural resource management: co-management. Geoforum, 26(2), 187-209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(95)00019-H Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 OBWB. (2011). Local Government Users Guide to the Okanagan Water Supply & Demand Project. Retrieved from https://www.obwb.ca/wsd/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/OBWB_Local_Government_Guide_OWSD_Project.pdf OBWB. (2019). Okanagan Wetlands Action Plan. A Resource for Local Government and Communities. Retrieved from https://www.obwb.ca/newsite/wp-content/uploads/rpt_wetlands_final_singles_1_1.pdf OBWB. (2022). Okanagan Nation Alliance to have Full Voting Rights on Okanagan Basin Water Board [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.syilx.org/wp/wp-188 content/uploads/2022/03/Okanagan-Nation-Alliance-to-have-full-voting-rights-on-Okanagan-Basin-Water-Board-_FINAL-1.pdf OBWB (Cartographer). (n.d.-a). Okanagan Basin. Retrieved from https://obwb.ca/basin_map/ OBWB. (n.d.-b). Okanagan Water Supply & Demand Project. Retrieved from https://www.obwb.ca/wsd/water-usage/residential-water-use OBWB. (n.d.-c). Water Supply & Demand Project. Retrieved from https://obwb.ca/wsd-index/ OBWB. (n.d.-d). Water Use. Retrieved from https://obwb.ca/wsd-index/key-findings/water-use/ OBWB. (n.d.-e). What We Do - Overview. Retrieved from http://obwb.ca/overview/ Okanagan Water Stewardship Council. (2019, October, 2019). Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy: Action Plan 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.obwb.ca/newsite/wp-content/uploads/Okanagan_Sustainable_Water_Strategy_Action_Plan_2_0.pdf Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4). ONA. (2017). Syilx (Okanagan) Water Planning Methodology. ONA. (2021). We will protect the water. A Syilx strategy to protect and restore siwɬkw (water) 2021. Retrieved from https://www.syilx.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Syilx-Water-Strategy-2022-Edition.pdf ONA. (n.d.-a). Fisheries. Retrieved from https://www.syilx.org/fisheries/ ONA. (n.d.-b). n’titxw Chief Salmon. Retrieved from https://www.syilx.org/fisheries/okanagan-sockeye/ ONA. (n/d-a). Okanagan Nation Alliance: Governance. Retrieved from https://www.syilx.org/governance/ 189 ONA. (n/d-b). Okanagan Nation Alliance: our projects. Retrieved from https://www.syilx.org/fisheries/our-projects/ Ortolano, L., & Cushing, K. (2002). Grand Coulee Dam 70 Years Later: What Can We Learn? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 18(3), 373-390. doi:10.1080/0790062022000006880 Osherenko, G., & Canadian Arctic Resources, C. (1988). Sharing power with native users: co-management regimes for native wildlife (Vol. 5;5.;). Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. Osmond-Johnson, P., & Turner, P. (2020). Navigating the "ethical space" of truth and reconciliation: Non-Indigenous school principals in Saskatchewan. Curriculum inquiry, 50(1), 54-77. doi:10.1080/03626784.2020.1715205 Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422. Page, S. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition: Princeton University Press. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001 Pahl-Wostl, C., Bhaduri, A., & Gupta, J. (2016). Handbook on water security: Edward Elgar Publishing. 190 Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 24-34. Parisien, M.-A., Barber, Q. E., Bourbonnais, M. L., Daniels, L. D., Flannigan, M. D., Gray, R. W., . . . Taylor, S. W. (2023). Abrupt, climate-induced increase in wildfires in British Columbia since the mid-2000s. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 309. Parsons, M., & Fisher, K. (2020). Indigenous peoples and transformations in freshwater governance and management. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 44, 124-139. Peirce, C. S. (1991). Peirce on Signs Writings on Semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce: University of North Carolina Press. Pink, S. (2004). Visual methods. Qualitative research practice, 391-406. Pinkerton, E. (2003). Toward Specificity in Complexity: Understanding co-management from a social science perspective. In The Fisheries Co-management Experience (pp. 61-77). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Plummer, R. (2013). Can Adaptive Comanagement Help to Address the Challenges of Climate Change Adaptation? Ecol Soc, 18. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05699-180402 Plummer, R., Crona, B., Armitage, D., Olsson, P., Tengö, M., & Yudina, O. (2012). Adaptive co-management: a systematic review and analysis. Ecol Soc, 17. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311 PO'B, L. (2005). Co-managing environmental research: lessons from two cross-cultural research partnerships in New Zealand. Environmental Conservation, 32(4), 365-370. 191 Pohl, C. (2005). Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures, 37(10), 1159-1178. Pomeroy, R. S., & Berkes, F. (1997). Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine policy, 21(5), 465-480. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1 Porter, L., & Barry, J. (2016). Planning for Coexistence?: Recognizing Indigenous rights through land-use planning in Canada and Australia. London: Routledge. Portner, H., Scholes, R., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., & Chan, L. (2021). IPBES-IPCC CO-Sponsored Workshop Biodiversity and climate change. Paper presented at the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. Postel, S., & Richter, B. (2012). Rivers for life: managing water for people and nature: Island press. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour, 22. doi:10.1080/08941920802199202 Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society & natural resources, 22(6), 501-518. doi:10.1080/08941920802199202 Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., . . . Raymond, C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01 192 Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J. F., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., . . . Marshall, A. (2021). “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2), 243-261. Reitstätter, L., Galter, K., & Bakondi, F. (2022). Looking to read: How visitors use exhibit labels in the art museum. Visitor Studies, 25 (2), 127-150. In. Reo, N. J., Whyte, K. P., McGregor, D., Smith, M., & Jenkins, J. F. (2017). Factors that support Indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13(2), 58-68. Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Benyei, P., Bussmann, R. W., Diamond, S. K., . . . Brondizio, E. S. (2022). Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. AMBIO, 51(1), 84-92. doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7 Robinson, J. (2008). Being undisciplined: Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures, 40(1), 70-86. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.06.007 Rodon, T. (1998). Co‐management and self‐determination in Nunavut. Polar Geography, 22(2), 119-135. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10889379809377641 Rodon, T. (2021). Land-Use Co-Management in Canada: A Mixed Experience. Finnmark Act, 15, 289-311. Sam, M. G. (2013). Oral narratives, customary laws and indigenous water rights in Canada. University of British Columbia, Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ (Dissertation/Thesis) Sanders, E. B.-N., Singh, S., & Braun, E. (2018). Co-designing with communities. 193 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5-14. Sanders, L., & Simons, G. (2009). A social vision for value co-creation in design. Open Source Business Resource(December 2009). Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration: Basic books. Scholtz, C. (2013). Negotiating claims: the emergence of indigenous land claim negotiation policies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: Routledge. Schön, D. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action: Routledge. Schorch, P., Walton, J. L., Priest, N., & Paradies, Y. (2015). Encountering the ‘Other’: Interpreting Student Experiences of a Multi-Sensory Museum Exhibition. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36, 221 - 240. Schubotz, D. (2020). Participatory action research: SAGE Publications Limited. Schwann, A. (2018). Ecological wisdom: Reclaiming the cultural landscape of the Okanagan Valley. Journal of Urban Management, 7(3), 172-180. doi:10.1016/j.jum.2018.05.004 Shrinkhal, R. (2021). “Indigenous sovereignty” and right to self-determination in international law: a critical appraisal. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(1), 71-82. Silvern, S. E. (1999). Scales of justice: law, American Indian treaty rights and the political construction of scale. Political Geography, 18(6), 639-668. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(99)00001-3 194 Simms, B. R. (2014). “All of the water that is in our reserves and that is in our territory is ours”: Colonial and Indigenous water governance in unceded Indigenous territories in British Columbia. University of British Columbia, Simms, B. R., Harris, L., Joe, N., & Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 73, 6-16. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.04.005 Smith, C. D. (2020). Creating Ethical Spaces: Opportunities to Connect with Land for Life and Learning in the NWT: Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London;New York;: Zed Books. Song, A., Temby, O., Krantzberg, G., Hickey, G. M., Temby, O., & Stoett, P. (2017). Institutional features of US-Canadian transboundary fisheries governance. Towards continental environmental policy. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, USA, 156-179. Sorrells, K. (2020). Intercultural communication: Globalization and social justice: SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Spaeder, J. J., & Feit, H. A. (2005). Co-management and Indigenous Communities: Barriers and Bridges to Decentralized Resource Management: Introduction. Anthropologica (Ottawa), 47(2), 147-154. doi:10.2307/25606232 Starman, A. B. (2013). The case study as a type of qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies/Sodobna Pedagogika, 64(1). 195 Steffen, W., Persson, Å., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., . . . Gordon, L. (2011). The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. AMBIO, 40, 739-761. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x Stein, K. (2022). Costanza-Chock, Sasha. Design Justice, Community Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. In (Vol. 41, pp. 17): Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture. Steinhauer, E. (2002). Thoughts on an indigenous research methodology. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(2), 69. Stevens, N. (2017). Media Reviews: Seattle Symphony-" John Luther Adams: Become Ocean". Journal of the Society for American Music, 11(3), 382. Stevenson, M. G. (2006). The possibility of difference: rethinking co-management. Human organization, 65(2), 167-180. doi:https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.65.2.b2dm8thgb7wa4m53 Stevenson, S. (2019). (Re) Making Indigenous Water Worlds: Settler Colonialism, Indigenous Rights, and Hydrosocial Relations in the Settler Nation State. Carleton University, Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American journal of community psychology, 38, 63-77. Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S77-S89. Strachan, B. (2022). Okanagan First Nation fishery celebrates record return of sockeye salmon. CBC. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sockeye-salmon-okangan-fishery-osoyoos-1.6571895 196 Strang, V. (2020). The meaning of water: Routledge. Supreme Court of Canada. (2014). Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. ([2014] 2 SCR 257). Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do Swerdfager, T., & Armitage, D. (2023). Co-management at a crossroads in Canada: issues, opportunities, and emerging challenges in fisheries and marine contexts. FACETS. doi:https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0217 Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO, 43, 579-591. Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., . . . Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 26, 17-25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005 Terbasket, P., & Shields, S. (2019). Syilx perspective on original foods: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9(A), 49-54. doi:https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2019.091.016 Tessier, V., & Mithra, Z. (2019). Assessment of collaborative design: A sociocultural approach. Paper presented at the DS 95: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2019), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. 12th-13th September 2019. Thambinathan, V., & Kinsella, E. A. (2021). Decolonizing Methodologies in Qualitative Research: Creating Spaces for Transformative Praxis. International Journal of 197 Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211014766. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211014766 Thorogood, M., Correia, M., & Dulic, A. (2022). A Networked Multi-channel Audio and Video Authoring and Display System for Immersive Recombinatory Media Installations. Turner, N. J., Ignace, M. B., & Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1275-1287. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2 Turner, R. A., Addison, J., Arias, A., Bergseth, B. J., Marshall, N. A., Morrison, T. H., & Tobin, R. C. (2016). Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecology and Society, 21(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08542-210318 Tushman, M., & O'Reilly, C. A. (2002). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal: Harvard Business Press. Underberg, N. M., & Zorn, E. (2013). Digital ethnography: Anthropology, narrative, and new media: University of Texas Press. UNESCO. (2023). Partnerships and cooperation for water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/partnerships-and-cooperation-water van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001 Vannini, P. (2014). Non-representational ethnography: new ways of animating lifeworlds. cultural geographies, 22(2), 317-327. doi:10.1177/1474474014555657 198 Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory research methods–Choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1), 13244. Veale, A. J., & Russello, M. A. (2016). Sockeye salmon repatriation leads to population re‐establishment and rapid introgression with native kokanee. Evolutionary Applications, 9(10), 1301-1311. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12430 von der Porten, S. (2012). Canadian indigenous governance literature: A review. AlterNative : an international journal of indigenous peoples, 8(1), 1-14. doi:10.1177/117718011200800101 von der Porten, S., & de Loë, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149-160. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001 von Soest, C. (2022). Why do we speak to experts? Reviving the strength of the expert interview method. Perspectives on Politics, 1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001116 Wagner, J. (2008). Landscape Aesthetics, Water, and Settler Colonialism in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 12(1), 22-38. doi:10.5038/2162-4593.12.1.2 Wagner, J. R., & White, K. (2009). Water and development in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 3(4), 378-392. doi:10.1108/17506200910999129 Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2008). The theoretical, historical, and practice roots of CBPR. In (pp. 25-46). Wallerstein, N., Muhammad, M., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Rodriguez Espinosa, P., Avila, M., Baker, E. A., . . . Lucero, J. (2019). Power dynamics in community-based participatory 199 research: A multiple–case study analysis of partnering contexts, histories, and practices. Health Education & Behavior, 46(1_suppl), 19S-32S. Weber-Pillwax, C. (1999). Indigenous Research Methodology: Exploratory Discussion of an Elusive Subject. Journal of educational thought, 33(1), 31-45. Westbank First Nation. (n/d). Okanagan Nation Territory Map. Retrieved from https://www.wfn.ca/docs/wfn_title_and_rights_maps_8.5x11.pdf White, G. (2020). Indigenous empowerment through co-management: Land claims boards, wildlife management, and environmental regulation: UBC Press. Whyte, K. (2016). Indigenous environmental movements and the function of governance institutions. Whyte, KP, 563-580. Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes, 55(1), 153-162. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153 Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological processes, 2(1), 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7 Whyte, K. P., Brewer Ii, J. P., & Johnson, J. T. (2016). Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 25-32. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6 Wildcat, D. R. (2010). Red alert!: Saving the planet with indigenous knowledge: ReadHowYouWant. com. 200 Williams, B. K. (2011). Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues. Journal of environmental management, 92(5), 1346-1353. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.041 Williams, R. (1980). Problems in materialism and culture: Selected essays: Verso. Wilson, N. J. (2014). Indigenous water governance: Insights from the hydrosocial relations of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, Alaska. Geoforum, 57, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.08.005 Wilson, N. J., Harris, L. M., Joseph-Rear, A., Beaumont, J., & Satterfield, T. (2019). Water is medicine: Reimagining water security through Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in relationships to treated and traditional water sources in Yukon, Canada. Water, 11(3), 624. Wilson, N. J., & Inkster, J. (2018). Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(4), 516-538. Wilson, N. J., Montoya, T., Arseneault, R., & Curley, A. (2021). Governing water insecurity: Navigating indigenous water rights and regulatory politics in settler colonial states. Water International, 46(6), 783-801. Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony. Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg: Fernwood. Wilson, S., Breen, A. V., DuPré, L., & Xwi7xwa, C. (2019). Research and reconciliation: unsettling ways of knowing through indigenous relationships. Vancouver;Toronto, Ontario, Canada;: Canadian Scholars. 201 Winter, K. B., Vaughan, M. B., Kurashima, N., Giardina, C., Quiocho, K., Chang, K., . . . Berkes, F. (2021). Empowering Indigenous agency through community-driven collaborative management to achieve effective conservation: Hawai ‘i as an example. Pacific Conservation Biology, 27(4), 337-344. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of genocide research, 8(4), 387-409. Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 27(2), 139-162. doi:10.1177/0021886391272001 World Economic Forum. (2015). Global Risks 2015, 10th Edition. . Retrieved from http://www3. weforum. org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report15. pdf Wright, A. L., Gabel, C., Ballantyne, M., Jack, S. M., & Wahoush, O. (2019). Using two-eyed seeing in research with indigenous people: an integrative review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919869695. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919869695 Y2Y. (2021). Entering Ethical Space: Land-based reconciliation in the Kootenay-Columbia. Retrieved from https://y2y.net/blog/entering-ethical-space-land-based-reconciliation-in-the-kootenay-columbia/ Yates, J. S., Harris, L. M., & Wilson, N. J. (2017). Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environment and planning. D, Society & space, 35(5), 797-815. doi:10.1177/0263775817700395 Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage. Young, O. R., & Gasser, L. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale: MIT press. 202 Younging, G. (2018). Elements of Indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about Indigenous peoples: Brush Education. Younging, G., & Ebscohost. (2018). Elements of Indigenous style: a guide for writing by and about Indigenous Peoples. Edmonton, Alberta: Brush Education. Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2018). Co-design as collaborative research: Bristol University/AHRC Connected Communities Programme. 203 204 Appendices Appendix A. A Networked Multi-channel Audio and Video Authoring and Display System for Immersive Recombinatory Media Installations (Conference Paper) (Thorogood et al., 2022) Thorogood, M., Correia, M., & Dulic, A. (2022, June 10-22). A Networked Multi-channel Audio and Video Authoring and Display System for Immersive Recombinatory Media Installations (Conference Paper and Presentation). 27th International Symposium on Electronic Art, Barcelona, Spain. 205 Appendix B. Okanagan Waterways Past, Present and Future: Approaching Sustainability through Immersive Museum Exhibition Dulic, A., Thorogood, M., Sam, M., Correia, M., Alexis, S., & Armstrong, J. (2023). Okanagan Waterways Past, Present and Future: Approaching Sustainability through Immersive Museum Exhibition. Sustainability, 15(22), 16109.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Dulic, Aleksandra
Navigating cross-cultural confluences : ethical space engagements on human-water relations in the Okanagan
Text