Introduction
Northern coastal areas are vulnerable to impacts from local, regional, and global human activities (Halpern et al. 2008; Clarke et al. 2022). After decades of development and resource extraction in Indigenous peoples’ territories, there are prospects of future intensification of development associated with, for example, the renewable energy transition (Whyte 2023). With climate warming accelerating rates of change, the demand for a better understanding of the health and resilience of northern ecosystems has never been higher (Khatibi et al. 2021). Effective local adaptation and mitigation strategies for climate change often require an understanding of northern environments as complex social-ecological systems, in which social, economic, environmental, cultural, political, and technological components interact to determine the well-being of the local communities and society at large (Adelson 2000; Berkes et al. 2003; Ostrom 2009). In these situations, considering the differences between the observations and interpretations of change by Indigenous community members and the views of Western scientists builds a complex, sensitive, and relational picture needed to develop these adaptation strategies. (Chisholm Hatfield et al. 2018). Research programs therefore have the opportunity (and responsibility) to go beyond multidisciplinary approaches (i.e., several academic teams each working within their discipline) to a multiple knowledge system approach inclusive of Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and scientific knowledge (Tengö et al. 2014; Alexander et al. 2019; Zurba et al. 2022; Drake et al. 2023). More than a decade of scholarship leaves little doubt that a multiple-knowledge system approach inclusive of Indigenous knowledge promotes collaboration and enhances understanding, because it introduces relationality, place-specificity, long-term understanding and the transdisciplinary reality of lived experience into the research process while maintaining core academic values of transparency and reproducibility (Tengö et al. 2014; Alexander et al. 2019; Zurba et al. 2022; Drake et al. 2023).
The pairing of Indigenous knowledge and Western natural science for assessing environmental change has steadily increased over the last few decades (Brunet et al. 2014; Kouril et al. 2016; Thompson et al. 2020). In parallel, Indigenous scholars have continued to reflect on ways to make the research processes and outcomes more equitable, inclusive, and useful for northerners (Yua et al. 2022). Other scholars recommended that community-partnered research using multiple knowledge approaches should be supportive of environmental justice (Whyte 2018; Whyte 2020), and oriented towards Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and governance (Latulippe and Klenk 2020; Ignace et al. 2023; Liboiron and Cotter 2023; Wilson et al. 2023). To assess whether community-partnered research practice is in step with these reflections, there is a call for more projects to provide details about Indigenous engagement throughout the research process including project initiation, co-development, and implementation (Wilson et al. 2018; Alexander et al. 2019). Contextual information and detailed examples are often critical to bringing perspective on how researchers can engage in principled and actionable research, committing to involving Indigenous communities throughout the research process (Castleden et al. 2017; Alexander et al. 2019; Drake et al. 2023; Wilson et al. 2023); however examples of transparent communication of the context, challenges and lessons learned from transdisciplinary efforts to study environmental change in northern Canada remain scarce.
Here, we describe Indigenous engagement throughout all aspects of an interdisciplinary, Cree-driven, community-academic research partnership known as the Eeyou Coastal Habitat Comprehensive Research Project (CHCRP). This project was conducted between 2017–2022 to address critical knowledge gaps concerning the causes of ecological change in eelgrass (Zostera marina), the dominant vegetation that experienced a massive decline, and the concomitant decline in the abundance and Cree harvests of migratory Canada geese (Branta canadensis) in Eeyou Istchee, northern Québec, Canada (CRA 2008; FOPO 2008). The research involved Cree land users from four coastal communities, academics from seven universities, and many local and regional partners including industry (Hydro-Québec). The project was “comprehensive” in that it had a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature and also strove to link complex marine and coastal ecological processes to wildlife changes that impacted Cree traditional land use. It had a politically sensitive context, with research teams needing to produce actionable knowledge to address a long-standing concern of coastal Cree land users. The researchers thus sought to produce knowledge that was salient (relevant), credible, and legitimate from the perspective of diverse decision-makers including Eeyou Cree community members, Hydro-Québec, regional stakeholders, and the larger scientific community. Tasked with the integration of knowledge, the research teams evolved towards applying a multiple-knowledge systems approach, inclusive of Indigenous and scientific knowledge.
The goal of this work is to report and reflect on the challenges, complexities, and benefits of the multiple-knowledge systems approach taken in the CHCRP research program. Consistent with advice for projects that connect Indigenous knowledge and Western science (Alexander et al. 2019; Drake et al. 2023; Mosurska and Ford 2020; Drake et al. 2022), we provide details on the research context, framework, and workflow, how the knowledge-bridging activities of the natural science researchers evolved along the process, and what the co-developed research outputs look like. We describe the research setting (section 1), how the project was initiated, including decision-makers’ guidance given to the researchers (section 2), research sub-questions and activities conducted as part of the research (section 3), and research workflow (section 4). In the final section (section 5), we consider how different partners contributed toward the saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of knowledge and balanced trade-offs and tensions. We also offer ideas for better future work.
[Image omitted: See PDF]
Researcher positionality influences research and production of knowledge in many ways, from data collection to representation and interpretation of results ( Zurba et al. 2022; Ferguson et al. 2022). This paper has a diverse set of authors including members of the university research teams and of the project's Steering Committee, including Hydro-Québec research scientists, and local Cree officers, advisors and representatives from Niskamoon Corporation (a Cree-run not-for-profit organization working on the implementation of the Cree/Hydro-Québec Agreements). The project's Steering Committee provided feedback on a version of this manuscript presented to them, which helped the author team revise the manuscript. The technical language and reliance on references not widely accessible to non-academics remained barriers to more critical Cree input on the full long-written version. Several Cree colleagues chose to be acknowledged for their contributions rather than identified as co-authors.
At the outset of the project, the university research teams were mostly “newcomers” to Eeyou Istchee with no more than a few years of previous work in the region. Conceptually, the paper grew out of collaborations and conversations with Cree land users, leaders, and Niskamoon Corporation employees (both Cree and non-Cree) over the course of the project in multiple formal and informal occasions. Much was learned from these collaborations and conversations and the university researchers thank all the individuals who shared their knowledge in this way and commit to working to improve their practice and the research enterprise in general in the future. The Steering Committee members who elected to become co-authors on the manuscript have diverse backgrounds ranging from industry (Hydro-Québec) to members of the coastal Cree First Nations and representatives of Niskamoon.
Section 1: research setting
Geographical context: Eeyou Istchee, La Grande River, and regional environmental change
Eeyou Istchee is the ancestral territory of the Cree of northern Québec, Canada, and comprises 11 communities. Four coastal Cree First Nations, namely Waskaganish, Eastmain, Wemindji, and Chisasibi, are located on the eastern coast of James Bay (Fig. 1). The Cree Nation of Chisasibi is the largest, with the community of Chisasibi (which means “The Great River”) presently housing approximately 5000 people including a small number of Inuit (Statistics Canada 2022). A single main road connects the communities, and they are also reachable by air.
[Image omitted: See PDF]
The industrial activities in the region include mining, forestry, and hydroelectric development (Hydro-Québec), the latter having the largest impact on land, coastal, and marine environments (Scott 2020). Major watershed deviations transformed the hydrology of the region to increase La Grande River (LGR) flow for hydropower production (referred to here as the La Grande hydroelectric project), making this hydropower plant complex among the largest worldwide (Taha et al. 2019). As a result of the river diversions and dams, the LGR mean annual flow more than doubled from the late 1970s to 2009 from roughly 1700 m3 s−1 to 3400 m3 s−1 (Déry et al. 2016; Peck et al. 2022, see Kuzyk et al. 2023 for additional information on La Grande hydroelectric project).
Northern Québec has warmed progressively over the past three decades. Climate change effects in the marine environments of Hudson Bay and James Bay include a decrease in sea ice extent since the early 1980s (Hochheim and Barber 2010; Lukovich et al. 2021; Kowal et al. 2017), earlier fast ice breakup dates (Andrews et al. 2018; Taha et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2022), and warming of sea surface temperatures (Galbraith and Larouche 2011). The onset of a climate regime shift in the region was indicated by significant fluctuations in sea surface temperature over the spring and summer of the late 1990s, unusually early ice breakup and higher air and sea surface temperatures, all compared to previous records (dating back to 1983) (Leblanc et al. 2022; Kuzyk et al. 2023) (Fig. 2). All along the Eeyou Istchee coast, the land surface is uplifting (a process referred to as isostatic rebound) between 1.0 and 1.5 cm per year as a residual effect of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which retreated from the area approximately 8000 years ago (Martini 1986; Pendea et al. 2010).
[Image omitted: See PDF]
Sociocultural context: eelgrass, geese, and Cree
Eelgrass is the dominant seagrass species found in Arctic and subarctic coastal regions in Canada (Murphy et al. 2021). Large eelgrass meadows provide important ecosystem services (i.e., storage of carbon, mitigation of coastal erosion) and habitat for a variety of species (Moksnes et al. 2018; Murphy et al. 2021). Eelgrass is also an important food source for Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and Atlantic Brant (Branta bernicla hrota) in Eeyou Istchee (FOPO 2008; Reed et al. 1996).
Waterfowl harvesting has always been important for coastal Cree and, for more than 70 years, Canada geese have been one of the main waterfowl harvested by Cree hunters along the coast (Berkes et al. 1994; Prevett et al. 1983; Berkes 1978). When detailed harvest studies were conducted in Chisasibi in the 1970s, Canada Geese had the highest return relative to hunting effort (Berkes 1978; Feit 1978; James Bay and Northern Québec Native Harvesting Research Committee 1982). Coastal goose hunting was organised by trapline, which is a designated family territory where harvesting activities are, by tradition, carried out under the supervision of a respected family member, called the Cree tallyman (Québec 1976). In Chisasibi and Wemindji, an individual who possessed rich knowledge of the coastal habitat and goose hunt was identified to serve as the “goose boss” and coordinated the goose hunting activities within each trapline (Berkes 1978).
Cree land users noticed eelgrass losses from the start of hydroelectric development in Chisasibi, and they reported a dramatic decline in the late 1990s (Lemieux et al. 2000). This was the first time they had seen the near-complete loss of many of the long, dense eelgrass beds that had been important for attracting the geese (Kuzyk et al. 2023). Hydro-Québec monitoring data collected from 1982 onwards indicated that many beds near Chisasibi lost more than 90% of their biomass between 1996 and 1999. Surveys of eelgrass coverage in the summer of 1999 indicated that the 1996–1999 decline also affected eelgrass along the entire coastline from Chisasibi to Waskaganish (Leblanc et al. 2022). About 20 years after the decline, Cree land users and Hydro-Québec monitoring teams identified that eelgrass abundance remained low (Leblanc et al. 2022).
Many Cree hunters reported that the abundance of Canada geese along the coast declined during the 1990s and early 2000s, concurrent with the loss of eelgrass, and with major negative effects on the traditional fall goose hunt (FOPO 2008; Peloquin and Berkes 2009). On 4 March 2008, Cree representatives from Chisasibi testified about the eelgrass decline and loss of geese in their territory to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO 2008). During the testimony, they expressed the belief that the ecological changes in eelgrass and geese were associated with the La Grande hydroelectric development. Hydro-Québec maintained that the eelgrass decline was not related to the La Grande hydroelectric project citing the various environmental follow-ups (Lemieux et al. 1999; Lemieux and Lalumière 2000; Federal Review Panel for the Eastmain 1-A and Rupert Diversion Project 2006). Monitoring done by Hydro-Québec did not provide support for an association between eelgrass biomass declines and the increased influence of the La Grande freshwater plume. Alternative explanations for the eelgrass decline were put forward, including wasting disease, climate change, and isostatic rebound (Dickey 2015). This divergence between the industry-funded science and the experience of the Cree remained unresolved by traditional research processes.
Section 2: project initiation and research protocol
Following a special assembly in Chisasibi, the Cree Nation Government, Hydro-Québec, and Niskamoon Corporation signed a Research Agreement on 4 August 2016, to study the ecology of the coastal region of eastern James Bay and its use by waterfowl (Fig. 2). The agreement expresses a common interest shared by industry and regional and local Cree governments in expanding and strengthening collective knowledge about the Eeyou Istchee coastal ecology. The research project was envisioned as one that would integrate Cree Traditional Ecological Knowledge (hereafter referred to as Cree knowledge) with the state-of-the-art scientific research techniques to conduct a comprehensive study of the coastal habitat, emphasizing eelgrass and the relationships with wildlife, and particularly Canada geese because of its cultural importance to the Cree. The Agreement specified that the research would be overseen by a Steering Committee composed of representatives from each of the four Cree coastal communities, Niskamoon Corporation (Environmental director, Remedial works directors, Niskamoon local officers), Hydro-Québec (research scientist, wildlife biologist, anthropologist, and senior advisor in Indigenous relations), Cree Nation Government (wildlife biologist), and invited experts from Canada Wildlife Service (Government of Canada) and the Eeyou Marine Region Wildlife Board.
Collaboration between members of the Steering Committee led to the development of a research protocol informed by community members and Cree Nation Government input, to provide guidelines to all research teams recruited to the project. The protocol strongly promoted community involvement and specified that coastal Cree land users must participate in all fieldwork. The protocol also specified that research results needed to be regularly communicated to communities through symposia and reports, in addition to researchers publishing their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It would later be specified in the Niskamoon research policy that these reports and peer-reviewed papers should be reviewed by the steering committee prior to their publication (see Section 4: validation). Finally, the protocol specified that all Cree knowledge documented by the program would remain the collective property of the Cree Nation and that all data generated through this project would be delivered to the Niskamoon Corporation to archive on behalf of the coastal communities at the end of the CHCRP mandate.
The Steering Committee defined the geographic scope of the study area as all the coast of Eeyou Istchee (Eastern James Bay), stretching from Cape Jones in the north to Rupert Bay in the south (Fig. 1). The scope included the four coastal Cree communities of Waskaganish, Eastmain, Wemindji, and Chisasibi, and a total of 27 coastal traplines. The two research questions identified by the Steering Committee to guide the work and the integration of the results were the following:
1. What are the main factors affecting the current state of eelgrass along the eastern coast of Eeyou Istchee?
2. What is the impact of the current state of eelgrass on Canada goose presence and consequently, Cree hunting activities?
The research objectives were further broken down in the framework into five research components (i.e., teams): characterizing the coastal oceanography (ocean team) and river inputs to the bay (river team), studying the eelgrass and the factors influencing its growth (eelgrass team), studying the Canada Geese and their use of the coastal habitat (goose team), and documenting Cree knowledge of eelgrass, geese, harvesting practices, and coastal environmental change (Cree knowledge team) (Fig. 3). The teams had representation from seven Canadian universities (and initially one American university). The directive from the Steering Committee was that each team would complete its own work as well as contribute to a synthesis of the different research components. This was to be formalized in an integration report and draw upon Indigenous and scientific knowledge to answer the main research questions (Kuzyk et al. 2023).
[Image omitted: See PDF]
Section 3: research sub-questions and activities of the research teams
Within the framework provided by the Steering Committee, the research teams applied their respective expertise to identify research sub-questions to inform research design and execution in field campaigns. Here, we describe how the five research teams worked within and across their disciplines to answer the two main questions. The research was integrated into three packages of information addressing (i) the state of the coast, (ii) state of eelgrass, and (iii) state of geese, using interdisciplinary (i.e., several teams working across disciplines) and transdisciplinary (i.e., pairing perspectives and knowledges to produce knowledge beyond disciplines) methods (Stock and Burton 2011) (Fig. 3).
To assess the current state of eelgrass, the team used various indicators of eelgrass health measured on samples collected at 118 locations (Fig. 3, sub-question 1). Traplines were visited with the permission of the tallyman and guidance of Cree land users, who also provided input on study locations. Although the overarching research questions addressed the current state of eelgrass, the research teams also considered ways to understand how eelgrass biomass and cover changed since the 1970s (Fig. 3, sub-question 2). Including the historical perspectives led to more questions, such as when and why eelgrass declined and why it has failed to recover where it used to be healthy (Davis et al. 2024). The team assessed the current distribution of the eelgrass meadows along the coast using Landsat images and field surveys (Clyne et al. 2021) (Fig. 3, sub-question 3), and compared historical estimates of eelgrass abundance and distribution with current ones using data from various eelgrass monitoring reports (gray literature) (Leblanc et al. 2022). The Cree knowledge team also sought information to understand the past and current state of eelgrass along the coast using semi-structured interviews and participatory mapping with Cree knowledge holders (Idrobo 2023).
To assess the state of the coast (i.e., coastal environment), the river and ocean teams used a wide variety of approaches. Present-day and past oceanic conditions, including water physico-chemistry, circulation patterns, and ice and sediment properties (Fig. 3, sub-questions 4 and 5), were studied by direct measurements in the field, and by deployment and recovery of automated sensors mounted on oceanographic moorings, satellite remote sensing time series, autonomous side-scan sonar surveys, and sediment core collection (Peck et al. 2022; Évrard et al. 2023). Because rivers have a strong influence on coastal water properties and inshore eelgrass habitats, it was important to deepen our understanding of the land cover characteristics in the watersheds influencing riverine exports to the bay (Fig. 3, sub-question 6) (de Melo et al. 2022). River flow change through time was also assessed (Fig. 3, sub-question 7). In addition to this Western scientific data collection, Cree land users from the four coastal communities shared knowledge during interviews, describing aspects of the riverine and coastal environments and how they have changed since the 1970s (Fig. 3, sub-questions 5 and 7). The ocean, river, and Cree knowledge components aimed to characterize the habitat of the eelgrass year-round sufficiently well that we could look for associations with eelgrass abundance and morphometrics to assess what factors influence eelgrass (Fig. 3, sub-question 1).
The Cree knowledge and goose research teams also brought several different sources of information to the question of the state of geese in the region. Canada goose populations harvested in Eeyou Istchee were estimated by using harvest booklets and bands recovered from geese hunted along the coast (Fig. 3, sub-question 8) (Giroux et al. 2022). To assess distribution of geese (Fig. 3, sub-question 9), Cree knowledge holders offered insights on geese feeding behaviour, and migratory patterns (Idrobo et al. 2024); molt-migrant Canada geese were fitted with GSM–GPS devices to analyze their movements (Sorais et al. 2023); and helicopter surveys were conducted to observe geese distribution in the coastal habitat in spring and fall (Fig. 3, sub-question 9). To further assess coastal habitat used by Canada geese, researchers superimposed migration patterns and stopover points onto maps delineating various habitat types along the bay. These maps were created using remote sensing data (Fig. 3, sub-question 9).
Section 4: CHCRP workflow and process
Many aspects of the CHCRP workflow and process can be represented in three modules: project co-development, community engagement, and validation of findings (Fig. 4). Although the CHCRP contained unique components that cannot be generalized or replicated in other community-partnered research projects, it is still helpful to identify aspects of the project workflow that facilitated a multiple-knowledge system approach and characterize their corresponding benefits to the research teams and communities. This provides a practical case study of the implementation of the guiding principles and practices for community-based intercultural collaborations, such as those outlined by Reed et al. (2023) (i.e., seven principles), Tsosie et al. (2022) (i.e., six R’s), and David-Chavez and Gavin (2018) (i.e., six indicators of responsible research practice).
[Image omitted: See PDF]
Co-development
Among the frameworks proposed for projects using multiple-knowledge systems, a major recurring theme is project co-development, which we define as developing a research agenda to meet objectives determined with explicit reference to the needs and interests of community collaborators (Reed et al. 2023; Armitage et al. 2011; Norström et al. 2020). Co-development helps to ensure that the information generated by a project is “relevant” (Tsosie et al. 2022; David-Chavez and Gavin 2018) and has “meaningful benefits for communities” (Reed et al. 2023). Co-development in the CHCRP occurred first among the members of the Steering Committee to define the CHCRP framework, study area, and research questions; and, second among academic research teams, Cree land users and community members during the more detailed design and implementation aspects of the research project (Fig. 4). The Steering Committee played a crucial role in design and implementation by providing high-level feedback on researchers’ proposed work especially in relation to the overall project goals before the beginning of each field season. The Steering Committee and research teams worked together and consulted with local governments to design each component of the research and refine the research protocols so they would be aligned with the interests and concerns of the Eeyou Istchee coastal communities.
Working with Cree and scientific knowledge on the same issues and questions was another component of the co-development research process. At the beginning of each fieldwork season, some research teams reviewed and co-developed research plans with land users, including site selection and environmental variables to be monitored. Examining maps and discussing the currents, ice conditions, and eelgrass variation in small groups with Cree and scientific experts brought forward topics and locations of mutual interest and identified knowledge and methodological gaps.
Cree land users had ultimate authority over the field activities along the coast, consistent with traditional authority structures. Coastal tallymen typically identified land users knowledgeable of their family territory to guide researchers along nearshore waters to the sampling sites they suggested based on their knowledge about eelgrass and waterfowl. Researchers did not visit the traplines of tallymen who decided not to participate in the study. The land users’ active role in the selection of sampling sites allowed for the development of practical, efficient, and effective plans for the research activities. Sharing control over the field research activities demonstrated equity and built mutual respect between university researchers and Cree partners. Cree knowledge of the shallow water with numerous shoals was also essential to access most nearshore sites. These efforts to respect traditional authorities while co-developing detailed sampling plans aligned with the principle of “respect” regarding rights and traditions of others (Tsosie et al. 2022) and the principle of “embed(ed) relational accountability” (Reed et al. 2023). As advised by Reed et al. (2023), researchers sought to be “mindful of the impact of their actions and assumptions before, during, and following fieldwork” and to follow ethical practices (c.f. “ethics: free prior and informed consent”, David-Chavez et al. 2018). In summary, the specific benefits of the co-development process of the CHCRP to the project include: (i) establishment of Cree leadership and authority at the very outset of the project, (ii) provision of context for developing place-based solutions, (iii) placement of clear expectations on university researchers, and (iv) building awareness of community issues.
Community engagement
Community engagement encompasses both the relationships between researchers and research partners (including Cree land users and other community members) and interactions between researchers and the wider community, such as at open houses and school outreach events (Fig. 4). This engagement fostered a deeper understanding, acceptance, and support for the research within the Cree coastal communities. Engaging with community members also facilitated knowledge sharing and increased researchers’ awareness of community priorities and concerns.
Community engagement was formally facilitated by Niskamoon local officers, with a mandate to facilitate the inclusion of Cree land users in the research and monitoring activities. From 2017 to 2021, more than 60 Cree land users from the four coastal communities regularly participated directly in the research program. The Niskamoon local officers scheduled the fieldwork activities and arranged for the land users’ involvement on a daily basis, while bringing researchers up to speed on community history and sensitivities, and reporting how the communities perceived the researchers and research progress. The Niskamoon local officers also organized formal and informal activities in the communities, including presentations, consultations, workshops, and interviews. They found translators so community members could participate in the language of their choice.
The interactions between researchers, Cree land users, and other community members not formally engaged in the project brought awareness of the objective, processes, and results to a wider audience and provided the researchers with a broader social and environmental context. It helped address a community priority of increasing youth interest and engagement in natural science. The approach taken for community activities was to maximize outreach time and utilize a variety of outreach methods. For example, large, multi-day symposia were held twice (2019 and 2022) over the course of the project in Chisasibi and aired on the local radio. Social media including the project Facebook page carried information for each trapline and project updates. Information booths, open-houses, outreach activities in schools and Cree festive events, and field demonstrations were held on many occasions and during each year of the project. Various illustrations of the concepts and main results were created by the research teams and by a contractual illustrator throughout the project and were valued in the outreach activities as a good medium to share and unite knowledges. The community events offered an opportunity for Cree partners to influence the research agenda and raise knowledge gaps, aligning with Reed et al.’s (2023) principle of “critical reflection and sharing” because it provided an ideal setting for feedback while also making it easier to share information in a more accessible format (c.f. “access” indicator, David-Chavez et al. 2018).
Research activities such as travelling to eelgrass beds in Cree freighter canoes and by snowmobile or staying and having meals at hunting camps for several days provided opportunities for building “reciprocal relationships” between Cree land users and research teams. Reciprocal research relationships are those built on trust, friendship, and mutual respect (Reed et al. 2023; Tsosie et al. 2022). They may develop when time is taken to ensure that the research is commonly understood and desired, and when challenges are overcome as a team. Researchers frequently shared meals and stayed overnight at family camps in the traplines on research trips. These are places where extended family networks gather for traditional activities, such as fishing, berry picking, and goose hunting. The hospitality of the Cree land users and their families represented opportunities for researchers and community members to create common ground, open lines of communication, and exchange knowledge and perspectives informally. Depending on the study aims, land users often advised researchers on where to set moorings or field equipment, and some land users actively engaged in workshops and meetings, taking notes and sharing what they learned with family and friends. For example, as a gesture of hospitality and a desire to share their culture, on more than one occasion, land users gifted geese to the research teams and demonstrated how to prepare and cook the birds. Other community members shared their personal experiences and views about sensitive topics, such as colonialism, reconciliation, and the legacy of the residential school system. Such interactions reveal the development of mutual understanding and personal bonds. Researchers were invited back frequently to several traplines, illustrating Whyte’s (2013) point that knowledge exchange is a collaborative process, and just the beginning of a continuing relationship. The one-on-one interactions between researchers and community members also made clear that the Steering Committee was not acting as an intermediary or gatekeeper, through which all information had to pass. Members of the Steering Committee recognized that free and open communication between researchers and Cree land users was necessary for building trust. To summarize, the benefits of the community engagement processes within the CHCRP include: (i) relationship building, (ii) deepening and broadening of knowledge, (iii) increased support and awareness for the project, and (iv) greater awareness of community issues and societal context among researchers.
Validation
In contrast to some previous integration processes, integration in the CHCRP did not involve scientific validation of Cree knowledge but viewed both science and local knowledge as being legitimate in their own right, within their own context (Berkes 2017; Tengö et al. 2014). Validation in the CHCRP was an iterative process where researchers shared research progress and findings with Steering Committee members and Cree land users (Fig. 4). This process included sharing challenges, collaborating on solutions, recognizing shared perspectives and differing viewpoints, discussing the existing knowledge and knowledge gaps, interpreting findings, and identifying the most pressing gaps. Through these discussions, we developed a common ground and ways to relate scientific and Cree epistemologies (Tengö et al. 2014).
The validation process in the CHCRP included three distinct components. First, researchers shared results and outcomes with the Steering Committee. Based on their feedback, researchers revised the way key findings were presented. This process also allowed researchers to identify whether important perspectives were overlooked. Second, the Steering Committee meetings prepared the research teams to meet with land users in each community. In the early years of the project, consultations with land users were often done for sets of results, relating to just one sub-region or trapline, and they were conducted in small-group settings with a few Cree land users with expertise about that particular area. These meetings would involve in-depth discussions and draw on the common understanding built during the work up to that point, and the expertise of everyone present. Subsequently, researchers met with larger groups including members of the Chiefs and Councils (CNC), Elders Council, Cree Trappers’ Association, and Eeyou Marine Region Wildlife Board. Some meetings had formal translations and others informal translations. Third, the Steering Committee provided a final review of written manuscript-style documents before researchers submitted their work for consideration for publication in peer-reviewed journals or other media accessible to the broad public. This review process ensured that the Steering Committee members and other parties involved in the research were familiar with the research findings, final interpretations, and visualizations.
At the CHCRP final symposium in September 2022, members of all four communities came together in Chisasibi. The meeting had simultaneous translation in English, French, and the coastal Cree dialect using headsets. It contributed to the inclusion of a wider Cree audience, which could interact in their preferred language as they shared insights with researchers and other members of the community. This meeting provided an opportunity for researchers to give main conclusions and respond to questions. It also allowed inter-community discussion of the research results. To reach a wider audience, the symposium was also broadcast on Cree radio.
We consider the validation process of the CHCRP as an expression of the team’s efforts to “commit to reciprocal relationships” and “emphasize critical reflection and shared learning” and “represent” Indigenous voices (Reed et al. 2023; Tsosie et al. 2022). The specific benefits of the validation process of the CHCRP include: (i) improvement of communication between researchers and community members and local stakeholders, (ii) learning the benefits and limits of Western science in the region (what worked well; what were the challenges), and (iii) improvement of manuscripts and reports.
Section 5: saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of results
According to scholars working at the science-to-policy interface, for knowledge generated from community-partnered research projects to be actionable, it must be credible (adequate within scientific and other knowledge systems), salient (relevant to needs of decision makers), and legitimate (respectful of diverse values and beliefs). These definitions reflect those originally given by Cash et al. (2003) and are still used, for example, in the context of hydropower development (Bogaart 2023). However, Belcher et al. (2016) discussed how the definitions can be adjusted to a transdisciplinary research context and proposed that “effectiveness” should be added as a fourth criterion to reflect the actual or potential contributions of the research to problem solving and social change. This section examines how the concepts of saliency, legitimacy, and credibility were understood by the researchers in the particular context of the CHCRP collaboration, and how the choices made by researchers and other project participants contributed to these knowledge attributes (Fig. 5, Table S1). It reflects on the tensions and trade-offs that arose from balancing the sometimes-conflicting knowledge attributes within the contextual and political dimensions of the project. Finally, it briefly addresses the effectiveness of the research by summarizing the main findings. The goal of this critical analysis is to improve future Cree community–researcher partnerships.
[Image omitted: See PDF]
Salience
Like much transdisciplinary research, the CHCRP was rooted in the objective of helping to solve a problem, i.e., understanding the causes and consequences of the low abundance of eelgrass and geese. The concept of salience thus included the importance, significance, and usefulness of the research to the problem (Belcher et al. 2016). However, differences in perspective about the nature of the problem and the knowledge needed to solve it may reflect institutional relationships, governance structures, community history, political dynamics, and power relations. They may also reflect different knowledge values and backgrounds. Wheeler and Root-Bernstein (2020) give the example of Western scientists placing priority on establishing biophysical causation and mechanisms in a research project versus Indigenous community members focusing on interlinkages of social and ecological processes and problem-solving approaches. All the participants in the project had to become aware of these differences in perspective to move from the multidisciplinary framework established by the Steering Committee to an interdisciplinary project and then ultimately into a transdisciplinary project that combined Cree knowledge and scientific knowledge on an equal footing to address the research questions comprehensively (Kuzyk et al. 2023).
Another challenge for generating salient results was difference in perceptions of the time- and space-scales of the problem. While the central questions commissioned by the Steering Committee directed attention to the present environmental factors and state of the ecosystem, the perspective of many coastal land users, elders, and tallymen, especially from the CNC, was that changes were associated with the development of the LGR in the past. For them, the research question was “What caused the eelgrass crash and declines in geese?." While there were practical limitations on the scientific capacity for addressing Cree questions about the causes of past change because of incomplete data, the available scientific data were nevertheless applied to this question and a reconstruction of environmental variables and eelgrass did resolve some debates about the timing and magnitude of eelgrass decline (Leblanc et al. 2023). Cree knowledge shared with the research team enriched the picture of past environmental and ecosystem change (Idrobo et al. 2024). In terms of spatial scale, at the outset of the project, Hydro-Québec understood the eelgrass decline as a bay-wide event based on their historical monitoring data. In contrast, Chisasibi land users perceived their territory and the La Grande Complex at the centre of the eelgrass and goose declines. The Steering Committee did some of the negotiation of the different perspectives on saliency and communicated the priority knowledge needs to the researchers in the form of the two central research questions and scoping elements described in the framework. The researchers made a strong effort to generate results relevant to both community- and regional-scales.
Outside Chisasibi, other communities had different priority research questions and expectations for the research particular to their own context that had to be considered to develop salient results. Daisy House, CNC Chief, explained: “We are the same (Cree-Eeyouch) and different at the same time; we have had different experiences, different knowledge, different expertise due to different landscape and cumulative impacts and different priorities in each of our communities and even within Chisasibi, within the 10 coastal traplines… Each trapline is different and unique as well due to its own unique landscape and bodies of water” (D. House, personal communication, 10 October 2023). The researchers thus faced the challenge of maintaining a knowledge production process salient to different communities and groups. Through the iterative meeting and collaboration process, researchers became attuned to concerns of land users strongly engaged in the project from all four coastal communities. Adhering to the framework of conducting research across four communities meant that activities conducted in individual traplines were sometimes less comprehensive than desired by the respective tallymen and land users. While Cree land users preferred to see results communicated at the community and trapline levels, the research team’s mandate to integrate the knowledge at the regional level made this generally impractical within the available timeframe of the project.
A notable accomplishment of this project was the number of project outputs including scientific publications that directly addressed components of the central questions. One aspect of the SC’s project oversight was to pivot the researchers’ questions and activities back to the mandate when they started to become tangential. Yet, a source of tension is that the scientific results that are most readily published, i.e., those that address priorities of the scientific community, are not the results most relevant to community questions. Here, it helped to have a consortium of researchers that answered to each other in terms of producing results salient to the integrated central questions, and also jointly accountable to the Steering Committee and the communities by virtue of the project structure and organization.
Legitimacy
Legitimacy refers to the perceived fairness, inclusivity, and respect for diverse views (Belcher et al. 2016; Heink et al. 2015; Sarkki et al. 2014). A priority for all involved in the project was legitimacy in the eyes of coastal Cree land users, who have been impacted by the loss of eelgrass and poor fall goose hunt for decades but, in some cases, have had few positive previous experiences with researchers. There was a sense of needing/wanting to overcome a colonial past in which research agendas were not communicated or openly discussed or results mostly benefited people outside the communities. The diverse composition of the Steering Committee indicated respect for the diverse perspectives and concerns about the environment in Eeyou Istchee. The mandate given to the researchers to address the questions about ecosystem change and to use both Western science and Cree knowledge set an initial tone of balancing viewpoints. The researchers sought to maintain legitimacy throughout the project by, for example, demonstrating respect for Cree tallymen and land users regardless of whether they agreed with researcher perspectives on the project and listening and reflecting on all voiced concerns. Community leaders frequently reiterated that they viewed Cree land users as “the real experts”. This is not to say that they did not welcome scientific information, but that it was not needed to validate Cree knowledge. The researchers took a consensus-building approach across perspectives, appreciating that there could be divergences because of the different temporal and spatial scales of Cree and scientific knowledge or the uncertainties and limitations of scientific knowledge. For example, while Cree knowledge is rooted in detailed observations of the environment, scientific data often do not capture episodic events (e.g., sediment pulses, brief but intense high flow events) or small-scale patterns (e.g., ice roughness) due to the absence of researchers on the territory most of the time and the scale limitations of remote-sensing methods. Reconciling these divergences required an approach that drew upon multiple forms of evidence, including cross-fertilization of knowledge to build a stronger understanding that incorporated multiple scales.
Legitimacy was also improved by researchers’ awareness of the need to “make space” (Latulippe and Klenk 2020) for differences of opinion and diverging values. Sometimes researchers needed to listen to community members without preparing a response. This included accepting criticism for perceived shortcomings in the research process and the findings, and working towards reconciling divergent views as part of an ongoing process. The researchers could not meet every community member’s expectation and had to be straightforward about what the research could and could not achieve. For instance, some community members were disappointed that the project did not scientifically investigate all the past ecological and landscape impacts of the La Grande hydroelectric development. Others thought it should have focused more on the low numbers of geese and the poor fall goose hunt. The researchers tried to set and meet realistic expectations, honestly acknowledging the project’s limitations. At times, the Niskamoon local officers, who spoke fluent Cree and had connections in each community, helped researchers understand how community members perceived the research and provided advice about sensitive and respectful ways to proceed.
Credibility
Natural scientists associate credibility with knowledge produced using established scientific methods (e.g., reproducible and transparent methods) and rigorous interpretations, typically guaranteed by the peer-review process (Heink et al. 2015). The results also needed credibility within Cree knowledge, which is closely connected to the role of elders and other knowledge holders who engage in extensive, long-term observations of complex, diverse, and dynamic environments (Peloquin and Berkes 2009). The Steering Committee’s selection of research teams and support for academic activities, like thesis preparation and paper writing, promoted scientific credibility. The multiple knowledge systems framework allowed researchers to build credibility with Cree land users by enabling formal and informal channels for information exchange and pooling. The researchers also needed to demonstrate that research findings were independent and not subject to influence by Steering Committee members because of the institutional relationships and history between the Cree First Nations, Niskamoon, and Hydro-Québec. To this end, Steering Committee review processes were transparent, and researchers were not required to make changes in response to the reviews. With the entire consortium of researchers from seven different universities across Canada participating in production of the integration report, a diversity of perspectives influenced most interpretations and made it easy to reflect on individual bias. Iteratively seeking to enable dialogue across knowledge systems at community meetings and workshops helped build the credibility of the results.
Scholars have pointed out that how information presented plays a role in credibility alongside information content and how information is produced (Sarkki et al. 2014; Heink et al. 2015). All participants strived to enhance effective communication throughout the life of the project. There are some Cree words and concepts that are difficult to translate into English. Moreover, there is specific Cree knowledge that land users do not share with the outside world. Researchers tried to refine the language they used so that results were easily comprehensible and did not result in misunderstandings upon translation into Cree. For example, what natural scientists might call “clear water”, low in suspended sediment (turbidity), could be misunderstood as results that inform on the quality of water for drinking, which may not be the case, thus damaging credibility. An important lesson that researchers learned was to avoid statements making broad generalizations across space and time. As noted by Berkes (1978), “Cree hunters usually avoid making generalizations of the sort biologists make.” The generalizability (i.e., the external validity of applying results to new settings, people, or samples, (Creswell and Creswell 2017)) is an important concept in science, and was important in the project, but the particularity of the detailed Cree knowledge in individual traplines could reveal true or apparent flaws in generalizations that risked compromising the credibility of the research results. Most of the time, careful reconciliation of these perspectives added richness to the knowledge base, helping both Western scientists and Cree land users think about things in a different way.
Effectiveness
The “effectiveness” of the CHCRP will ultimately be evaluated by the extent to which the results contribute to changes in policy and practice, and generate social, economic, and environmental benefits for Eeyou Istchee (Belcher et al. 2016) and especially for the Cree community members who contributed their knowledge (Raymond et al. 2010). Other community benefits could include skill development and network and relationship building (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018). It is early days to evaluate CHCRP outcomes and impacts but potential arises from the fact that the research findings effectively countered the long-running narrative that hydro development in the 1980s and early 1990s did not impact the eelgrass ecosystem. The integrated results showed that the larger area of freshwater influence and excess sediment erosion caused by hydro development of the LGR likely initiated eelgrass declines in that sector of the coast while the regional climate was still relatively stable. The environmental changes ultimately reduced the resilience of the eelgrass ecosystem in the La Grande sector and affected the outcome when rapid climate change and extreme events of ice breakup and unprecedented water temperature increases (marine heat waves) began in the territory in the late 1990s (Kuzyk et al. 2023). The acceptance of the results by the Steering Committee and in communities suggests that decision-makers across various spheres came to understand things differently by the end of the project than they had at the beginning; hence, there may be some changes in attitude. Potential for impact also is embodied in the relationships that were built between researchers and community members, and the strong collective effort that was made by individuals across all subgroups of the project, from the research teams, Cree leaders and land users, community partners, and the SC, to keep the project moving towards the shared goals. Community members have expressed interest in working even more closely with researchers and taking on a larger role to build a second phase of the research program that more specifically centres each community’s particular needs and goals, and translates the results into useful information for community decision makers.
Recommendations
Engage, as often as possible, in deep discussion and listening
The above descriptions reveal some of the trade-offs and tensions that arose from trying to balance saliency, legitimacy, and credibility against each other within the project. Sarkki et al. (2014) described that some trade-offs are intrinsic to partnered, collaborative research, while others can be solved with additional resources. In our case, whether the key questions of both Cree and industry partners could be reasonably met, and how to prioritize regional and local concerns and research needs was an area of tension. The project not only gathered a diverse set of partners, but these partners also had different goals regarding the scale at which the research needed to be done. This is not a fundamental trade-off but one that can be addressed by frequent in-depth discussions when designing the project, commitment of additional resources, and flexibility all along to stay focus on evolving priorities of all end-users.
Support building local capacity
A second area of tension was that the multiple knowledge systems approach led to concerns around the credibility of the research to some Cree land users because scientific observations were limited to certain seasons and only a few years. To address this, local partners could extend observations throughout all seasons and increase the spatial coverage along the coast through locally driven environmental monitoring programs. Local research centres linked closely to university researchers are best placed to support these intensive sampling efforts (e.g., Wilson et al. 2018). Credibility also is improved by meaningful, ongoing discussions between scientists and Cree experts (the latest results, what they mean, and what new questions arise from them); more frequent discussions like this should be incorporated into future project workflows. With sustained support, it seems likely that local capacity for involvement and leadership of research will increase, which is a goal shared across all project team members.
Create space to allow discussion among all parties involved
Overall, the knowledge building in the project was facilitated by assembling experts within both scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems to develop, participate, coordinate, share knowledge, and review the knowledge produced. Cree land users themselves identified Cree experts on eelgrass and geese, and great care was taken to retain the context in which Cree knowledge was shared. On the Steering Committee, representatives from Hydro-Québec, Cree Nation Government, and the partnered communities all contributed to articulating research questions and participated in the review process. It sometimes resulted in adjusting the research questions and methods to adapt to local conditions and concerns of partners. This contributed to the aim of generating knowledge salient, legitimate, and credible for all parties involved.
Conclusion
The CHCRP provides an example of research that was framed and implemented with the intent to produce salient, legitimate, and credible knowledge to address environmental change in a coastal habitat comprising Indigenous’ people traditional territory. From the perspective of the authorship team, which includes diverse voices, it was important that the Indigenous-driven research was framed from the outset by community and regional leadership, and that the framing was mindful of rightsholders and stakeholders. In the context of this project, the research Steering Committee also included stakeholders, which provided a space for direct rightsholder-stakeholder conversations. It was critically important that the research unfolded with researchers and community members working closely together in meaningful research partnerships and that they had the freedom and support to do so.
Co-development, community engagement, and validation were iterative processes that initiated and then maintained collaborations with the Cree community and research partners throughout the project. Each process also aimed to ensure that the study outputs respected and upheld the principles of academic freedom and support for Indigenous peoples’ self-determination in research. They reflect the researchers’ understanding of their responsibilities in a multiple knowledge research project, i.e., build equitable relationships with partners; promote knowledge sharing; create opportunities for Indigenous partners to co-create research objectives and approaches; obtain consent to work in Indigenous territories; understand community contexts including historical experiences and desired futures; respect Indigenous knowledge and intellectual property; and share scientific findings frequently and in understandable formats (McGregor 2009; Wilson et al. 2018; Whyte 2013).
A desire to bridge Cree knowledge and Western science as constructs that each bring value into what this project called an “Integration Report” (Kuzyk et al. 2023), and a recognition that the dialogue of the two may produce greater results than either knowledge form individually, was critical to the project. The Integration Report may be viewed as a co-produced output from the CHCRP. Co-produced outputs imply that the research process resulted in changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and/or relationships that ideally will manifest as changes in behaviour and can lead to realised benefits for communities (Belcher and Halliwell 2021). These changes would not have happened in the absence of the research.
Tension was generated by the different interests, competing priorities and need for trade-offs, and even by differing levels of commitment within and across research teams. We suggest that these challenges and complexities characterize multiple knowledge system approaches seeking to produce salient, legitimate, and credible results to inform policy, and that sharing the responsibility for addressing these challenges promotes positive change in community-partnered research (c.f. Whyte 2013; Latulippe and Klenk 2020; Belcher and Halliwell 2021; Ignace et al. 2023).
Community contexts, historical experiences, priorities, and future goals of all four communities are complex. The territory is large and the communities unique, and producing knowledge useful to the governance of Indigenous communities and authorities represented a challenge. The project did not explicitly consider ideas of environmental justice or who benefits from the results (c.f. Whyte 2018). Nevertheless, by the end of the CHCRP mandate, communities had shared many of their priority concerns with the researchers and with members of the other coastal communities. Some of these concerns will need to be addressed by future research. The researchers faced constraints on travel and spending time in the territory due to the global COVID-19 pandemic and competing priorities, such as teaching, other research, and service. However, as quoted in Sarkki et al. (2014), when trying to work at the science-policy interface, “there is no best practice, it comes from best people”. It is promising how many individuals across the Cree Nation Government, Cree Nations of Chisasibi, Wemindji, Eastmain, and Waskaganish, Steering Committee, and research teams demonstrated commitment to best practices and willingness to learn and adapt.
It is also critical to emphasize that this paper cannot speak for all Cree project participants or community members who chose not to participate. Some may have agreed on the legitimacy of land users’ monetary compensation, while also disagreeing on what constitutes credibility or saliency. While some can put their differences aside for the sake of advancing research in the short term, others’ participation may be predicated on first seeing some policy change. Divergent understanding of context and priorities is intrinsically part of a partnered research environment; therefore, it is important for researchers to work with community leaders and mentors (for example, Niskamoon local officers, Cree representatives in SC, Chief, and Council) to assist them in navigating this delicate terrain. While there is certainly room to develop better frameworks and better implement collaborative research projects, this case study nevertheless provides useful insights at a time when northern nations are seeking to tackle numerous complex environmental problems, such as cumulative effects of legacy industrial projects and climate change.
Acknowledgements
The project is administered through Niskamoon Corporation. Information on this project can be found online: https://www.eeyoucoastalhabitat.ca. We thank Alexandra Langwieder (Align Illustration) for providing illustrations for Figs. 2 and 3. We wish to acknowledge Cree land users and community members for inviting researchers onto their traditional hunting territories, providing logistical support as guides, boat drivers and helpers, participating in field data collection, and most importantly, sharing their knowledge. Crees’ sharing of valuable knowledge of their lands and ecological processes was an integral part of the research project. This knowledge is collectively owned by the Cree Nation and shared with peoples’ consent during fieldwork, interviews, and community meetings. We also acknowledge colleagues and friends within the Cree Nation Government, Cree Nation of Waskaganish, Cree Nation of Eastmain, Cree Nation of Wemindji, Cree Nation of Chisasibi, Cree Regional Authority, Cree Trappers’ Association, Eeyou Marine Region Wildlife Board, Canadian Wildlife Service, and other community members who chose not to participate as co-authors but provided critical Cree feedback that improved this manuscript. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped us improve the manuscript. Finally, researchers thank additional sources of financial support for themselves and their students including NSERC (Discovery Grant and Northern Research Supplement), the Canada Excellence Research Chair (CERC) program, NCE ArcticNet, Fonds de recherche du Québec—Nature et technologies (FRQNT), and MITACS.
Adelson N. 2000. ‘Being Alive Well’: Health and the Politics of Cree Well-being, University of Toronto Press.
Alexander S.M., Provencher J.F., Henri D.A., Taylor J.J., Lloren J.I., Nanayakkara L., et al. 2019. Bridging indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Environmental Evidence, 8: 1–24.
Andrews J., Babb D., Barber D.G. 2018. Climate change and sea ice: shipping in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, and Foxe Basin (1980–2016). Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 6.
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 Global Environmental Change, 21: 995–1004.
Belcher B., Halliwell J. 2021. Conceptualizing the elements of research impact: towards semantic standards. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8: 1–6.
Belcher B.M., Rasmussen K.E., Kemshaw M.R., Zornes D.A. 2016. Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25: 1–17.
Berkes F. 1978. Waterfowl resources and their utilization by the Cree people of the James Bay area, Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec).
Berkes F. 2017. Sacred ecology, Routledge.
Berkes F., George P.J., Preston R.J., Hughes A., Turner J., Cummins B.D. 1994. Wildlife harvesting and sustainable regional native economy in the Hudson and James Bay Lowland, Ontario. Arctic, 350–360.
Berkes J., Folke C., Colding J. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change, New York.
Bogaart P. 2023. The potential for sustainable hydropower. Nature Water, 1–2.
Brunet N.D., Hickey G.M., Humphries M.M. 2014. The evolution of local participation and the mode of knowledge production in Arctic research. Ecology and Society, 19.
Cash D.W., Clark W.C., Alcock F., Dickson N.M., Eckley N., Guston D.H., et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100: 8086–8091.
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.
Chisholm Hatfield S., Marino E., Whyte K.P., Dello K.D., Mote P.W. 2018. Indian time: time, seasonality, and culture in Traditional Ecological knowledge of climate change. Ecological Processes, 7: 1–11.
Clarke B., Otto F., Stuart-Smith R., Harrington L. 2022. Extreme weather impacts of climate change: an attribution perspective. Environmental Research: Climate, 1: 012001.
Clyne K., Leblon B., Larocque A., Costa M., Leblanc M., Rabbitskin E., Dunn M. 2021. USE OF LANDSAT-8 OLI IMAGERY AND LOCAL INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE FOR EELGRASS MAPPING IN EEYOU ISTCHEE. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences.
CRA 2008. Migratory Bird Data Collection and Information Sharing in Northern Cree Communities. Report of the Cree Regional Authority, Montréal (Quebec), Canada.
Creswell J.W., Creswell J.D. 2017. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage Publications.
David-Chavez D.M., Gavin M.C. 2018. A global assessment of indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13: 123005.
David-Chavez D.M., Gavin M.C. 2018. A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12): 123005.
Davis K.E., Noisette F., Ehn J.K., Kuzyk Z.Z.A., Peck C.J., O'Connor M.I., 2024 Effects of light and water column nutrient availability on eelgrass Zostera marina productivity in Eeyou Istchee, eastern James Bay, Quebec. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 738, 103-117.
de Melo M.L., Gérardin M.-L., Fink-Mercier C., del Giorgio P.A. 2022. Patterns in riverine carbon, nutrient and suspended solids export to the Eastern James Bay: links to climate, hydrology and landscape. Biogeochemistry, 1–24.
Déry S.J., Stadnyk T.A., Macdonald M.K., Gauli-Sharma B. 2016. Recent trends and variability in river discharge across northern Canada. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20: 4801–4818.
Dickey M.-H. 2015. Status of eelgrass beds on the east coast of James Bay. Internal Environment Canada Report, Québec, QC, 76pp.
Drake A., Dunmall K., Nguyen V., Provencher J., Henri D., Alexander S. 2023. Bridging indigenous and Western sciences: decision points guiding aquatic research and monitoring in Inuit Nunangat. Conservation Science and Practice, 5: e12972.
Drake A., Perkovic A., Reeve C., Alexander S., Nguyen V., Dunmall K. 2022. Community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring in Inuit Nunangat: a scoping literature review. Facets, 7: 891–911.
Évrard A., Fink-Mercier C., Galindo V., Neumeier U., Gosselin M., Xie H. 2023. Regulated vs. unregulated rivers: impacts on CDOM dynamics in the eastern James Bay. Marine Chemistry, 256: 104309.
Federal Review Panel for the Eastmain 1-A and Rupert Diversion Project 2006. Évaluation environmental du project hydroélectricque Eastmain-1- A et dérivation Rupert. Rapport de la Commission.
Feit H. 1978. Hunting Wildlife and Wage Employment: Resource Use Strategies at Fort George, Quebec.
Ferguson D.B., Meadow A.M., Huntington H.P. 2022. Making a difference: planning for engaged participation in environmental research. Environmental Management, 1–17.
FOPO 2008. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. 2nd session, 39th parliament. Testimonials.
Galbraith P.S., Larouche P. 2011. Reprint of “sea-surface temperature in Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait in relation to air temperature and ice cover breakup, 1985–2009.” Journal of Marine Systems, 88: 463–475.
Giroux J.-F., Rodrigue J., Brook R., Patenaude-Monette M. 2022. Canada Goose populations harvested in Eastern James Bay by Eeyou Istchee Cree hunters. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 17.
Government of Canada. 2013. Topographic Data of Canada—CanVec 1:50,000, 1944-2013 [Online]. Available from https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/be0165a8-ad5d-4adb-a27a-2d4117c3967c [accessed January 2023].
Government of Quebec. 2020. Base de données géographiques et administratives [Online]. Available from https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/base-de-donnees-geographiques-et-administratives [accessed January 2023].
Gupta K., Mukhopadhyay A., Babb D.G., Barber D.G., Ehn J.K. 2022. Landfast sea ice in Hudson Bay and James BayAnnual cycle, variability and trends, 2000–2019. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 10(1): 00073.
Halpern B.S., Walbridge S., Selkoe K.A., Kappel C.V., Micheli F., D'agrosa C., et al. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science, 319: 948–952.
Heink U., Marquard E., Heubach K., Jax K., Kugel C., Neßhöver C., et al. 2015. Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: challenges and opportunities. Science and Public Policy, 42: 676–689.
Hochheim K., Barber D. 2010. Atmospheric forcing of sea ice in Hudson Bay during the fall period, 1980–2005. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 115.
Idrobo C., Leblanc M-L, O'Connor M.I. 2024. The turning point for the fall goose hunt in Eeyou Istchee: a social-ecological regime shift from an Indigenous knowledge perspective. Human Ecology, 1–20.
Idrobo C.J. 2023. Eeyou Coastal Habitat Comprehensive Research Project: Cree Knowledge Report. Prepared for Niskamoon Corporation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Ignace L., Burton L., Mynott S., Meehan M., Olson E., Steel J., et al. 2023. Researchers’ responsibility to uphold indigenous rights. Science, 381: 129–131.
James Bay and Northern Québec Native Harvesting Research Committee 1982. The wealth of the land: harvests of James Bay Cree, 1972–73 to 1978–79. Québec City, James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee.
Khatibi F.S., Dedekorkut-Howes A., Howes M., Torabi E. 2021. Can public awareness, knowledge and engagement improve climate change adaptation policies? Discover Sustainability, 2: 1–24.
Kouril D., Furgal C., Whillans T. 2016. Trends and key elements in community-based monitoring: a systematic review of the literature with an emphasis on Arctic and Subarctic regions. Environmental Reviews, 24: 151–163.
Kowal S., Gough W.A., Butler K. 2017. Temporal evolution of Hudson Bay sea ice (1971–2011). Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 127: 753–760.
Kuzyk Z.A., Leblanc M.L., O'Connor M., Idrobo J., Giroux J.-F., del Giorgio P., et al. 2023. 2023. Understanding Shkaapaashkw (ᔑᑳᐹᔥᒄᐦ): Eelgrass Health and Goose Presence in Eastern James Bay. Final Report from the Eeyou Coastal Habitat Comprehensive Research Project (CHCRP). Prepared for Niskamoon Corporation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB Canada. Available from https://canwin-datahub.ad.umanitoba.ca/data/fr/project/eeyou-coastal-habitat-project.
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.
Leblanc M.L., O'Connor M.I., Kuzyk Z.Z.A., Noisette F., Davis K.E., Rabbitskin E., et al. 2022. Limited recovery following a massive seagrass decline in subarctic eastern Canada. Global Change Biology.
Leblanc M.L., O'Connor M.I., Kuzyk Z.Z.A., Noisette F., Davis K.E., Rabbitskin E., et al. 2023. Limited recovery following a massive seagrass decline in subarctic eastern Canada. Global Change Biology, 29: 432–450.
Lemieux C., Lalumière R. 2000. Complexe La Grande. Suivi environnemental 2000. Les habitats côtiers de la baie James. Rapport présenté à la direction Expertise et Support technique de production. Unité Hydraulique et Environnement, Hydre-Québec par le Groupe conseil Génivar inc. 68 p. et annexes.
Lemieux C., Lalumière R., Laperle M. 1999. Complexe La Grande. Suivi environnemental 1999. Les habitats côtiers de la baie James et la végétation aquatique de La Grande Rivière. Rapport présenté à la Direction Expertise et Support technique de production, Unité Hydraulique et Environnement Hydro-Québec, par le Groupe conseil Génivar inc. 73 p. et annexes.
Lemieux C., Lalumière R., Laperle. M. 2000. La Grande Complex. Environmental Monitoring 1999. The coastal habitats of James Bay and the aquatic vegetation of the La Grande River. Summary report prepared for Hydro-Québec by Genivar Consulting Group Inc.Rep., 22 + 23 appendices pp.
Liboiron M., Cotter R. 2023. Review of participation of indigenous peoples in plastics pollution governance. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics, 1: e16.
Lukovich J.V., Jafarikhasragh S., Tefs A., Myers P.G., Sydor K., Wong K., et al. 2021. A baseline evaluation of oceanographic and sea ice conditions in the Hudson Bay Complex during 2016–2018. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 9: 00128.
Martini I. 1986. Coastal features of Canadian inland seas. Elsevier oceanography series. Elsevier.
Mcgregor D. 2009. Linking traditional knowledge and environmental practice in Ontario. Journal of Canadian Studies, 43: 69–100.
Moksnes P.-O., Eriander L., Infantes E., Holmer M. 2018. Local regime shifts prevent natural recovery and restoration of lost eelgrass beds along the Swedish west coast. Estuaries and Coasts, 41: 1712–1731.
Mosurska A., Ford J.D. 2020. Unpacking community participation in research. Arctic, 73: 347–367.
Murphy G.E., Dunic J.C., Adamczyk E.M., Bittick S.J., Côté I.M., Cristiani J., et al. 2021. From coast to coast to coast: ecology and management of seagrass ecosystems across FACETS, 6: 139–179.
Norström A.V., Cvitanovic C., Löf M.F., West S., Wyborn C., Balvanera P., et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3: 182–190.
Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325: 419–422.
Peck C.J., Kuzyk Z.Z.A., Heath J.P., Lameboy J., Ehn J.K. 2022. Under-ice hydrography of the La Grande River plume in relation to a ten-fold increase in wintertime discharge. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 127: e2021JC018341.
Peloquin C., Berkes F. 2009. Local knowledge, subsistence harvests, and social–ecological complexity in James Bay. Human Ecology, 37: 533–545.
Pendea I.F., Costopoulos A., Nielsen C., Chmura G.L. 2010. A new shoreline displacement model for the last 7 ka from eastern James Bay, Canada. Quaternary Research, 73: 474–484.
Prevett J., Lumsden H., Johnson F. 1983. Waterfowl kill by Cree hunters of the Hudson Bay Lowland, Ontario. Arctic, 185–192.
Québec G.O. 1976. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). In: Affairs I.A.N. (ed.).
Raymond C.M., Fazey I., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Robinson G.M., Evely A.C. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91: 1766–1777.
Reed A., Benoit R., Julien M., Lalumière R. 1996. Goose use of the coastal habitats of northeastern James Bay, Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Reed M.G., Robson J.P., Campos Rivera M., Chapela F., Davidson-Hunt I., Friedrichsen P., et al. 2023. Guiding principles for transdisciplinary sustainability research and practice. People and Nature, 5: 1094–1109.
Sarkki S., Niemelä J., Tinch R., van den Hove S., Watt A., Young J. 2014. Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Science and Public Policy, 41: 194–206.
Scott C. 2020. On nation-to-nation partnership and the never-ending business of treaty-making: reflections on the experience of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee (Eastern James Bay). Anthropologica, 62: 248–261.
Sorais M., Patenaude-Monette M., Sharp C., Askren R., Larocque A., Leblon B., Giroux J.F. 2023. Migration patterns and habitat use by molt migrant temperate-breeding Canada geese in James Bay, Canada. Wildlife Biology, 2023: e01062.
Statistics Canada 2022. Census profile, 2021 census of population.
Stock P., Burton R.J. 2011. Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability, 3: 1090–1113.
Taha W., Bonneau-Lefebvre M., Cueto Bergner A., Tremblay A. 2019. Evolution from past to future conditions of fast ice coverage in James Bay. Frontiers in Earth Science, 7: 254.
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.
Thompson K.-L., Lantz T., Ban N. 2020. A review of Indigenous knowledge and participation in environmental monitoring. Ecology and Society, 25.
Tsosie R.L., Grant A.D., Harrington J., Wu K., Thomas A., Chase S., et al. 2022. The six rs of indigenous research. Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 33.
Wheeler H.C., Root-Bernstein M. 2020. Informing decision-making with indigenous and local knowledge and science. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57: 1634–1643.
Whyte K. 2018. Critical investigations of resilience: a brief introduction to indigenous environmental studies & sciences. Daedalus, 147: 136–147.
Whyte K. 2020. Too late for indigenous climate justice: ecological and relational tipping points. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11: e603.
Whyte K. 2023. Indigenous Environmental Justice, Renewable Energy Transition, and the Infrastructure of Sovereignty. Environmental Justice in North America. Routledge.
Whyte K.P. 2013. On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2: 1–12.
Wilson N.J., Mutter E., Inkster J., Satterfield T. 2018. Community-based monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. Journal of Environmental Management, 210: 290–298.
Wilson N.J., Worden E., O'Hanlon G. 2023. Connecting Community-based Monitoring to environmental governance in the Arctic: A systematic scoping review of the literature. Arctic Science.
Yua E., Raymond-Yakoubian J., Daniel R.A., Behe C. 2022. A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research.
Zurba M., Petriello M.A., Madge C., Mccarney P., Bishop B., Mcbeth S., et al. 2022. Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut. Sustainability Science, 17: 449–467.
Caroline Fink-Mercier https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4195-2991 [email protected]
Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski and Québec Océan, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.
Caroline Fink-Mercier and Melanie L.Leblanc are co-first authors.
Melanie L. Leblanc https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7641-7940
Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.
Caroline Fink-Mercier and Melanie L.Leblanc are co-first authors.
Fanny Noisette https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9672-2870
Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski and Québec Océan, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, and Writing – review & editing.
Mary O'Connor https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9583-1592
Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, and Writing – review & editing.
Julián Idrobo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1971-1462
Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, and Writing – review & editing.
Simon Bélanger https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9172-8376
Département de biologie, chimie et géographie, Groupe BORÉAS and Québec Océan, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Paul A. del Giorgio https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1866-8159
Département des sciences biologiques and Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Michaela de Melo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-4153
Département des sciences biologiques and Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing – review & editing.
Jens K. Ehn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8885-7441
Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) and Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Jean-François Giroux https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6732-489X
Département des sciences biologiques and Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Michel Gosselin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1044-0793
Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski and Québec Océan, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Brigitte Leblon
Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Urs Neumeier https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-3963
Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski and Québec Océan, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Manon Sorais https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5126-6330
Département des sciences biologiques and Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing – review & editing.
Murray M. Humphries
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing – review & editing.
Christopher Peck
Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) and Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing – review & editing.
Kaleigh E. Davis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3127-9484
Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing – review & editing.
Alessia Guzzi https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3858-8866
Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) and Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing – review & editing.
Virginie Galindo
Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski and Québec Océan, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization and Methodology.
Armand LaRocque https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2509-0167
Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing – review & editing.
Marc Dunn
Niskamoon Corporation, Chisasibi, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, and Writing – review & editing.
Réal Courcelles
Hydro-Quebec, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, and Writing – review & editing.
Carine Durocher
Hydro-Quebec, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, and Writing – review & editing.
Jean-Philippe Gilbert
Hydro-Quebec, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, and Writing – review & editing.
Robbie Tapiatic
Niskamoon Corporation, Chisasibi, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Project administration.
Ernie Rabbitskin
Niskamoon Corporation, Chisasibi, Québec, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Project administration.
Zou Zou A. Kuzyk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6891-6125
Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) and Department of Earth Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.
Zou Zou A. Kuzyk served as Associate Editor at the time of manuscript review and acceptance and did not handle peer review and editorial decisions regarding this manuscript.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Indigenous-driven and community-partnered research projects seeking to develop salient, legitimate, and credible knowledge bases for environmental decision-making require a multiple knowledge systems approach. When involving partners in addition to communities, diverging perspectives and priorities may arise, making the pathways to engaging in principled research while generating actionable knowledge unclear to disciplinarily-trained natural science researchers. Here, we share insights from the Eeyou Coastal Habitat Comprehensive Research Project (CHCRP), an interdisciplinary, Cree-driven community-academic partnership. This project brought together Cree community members, regional organizations, industry (Hydro-Québec), and academics from seven universities across Canada to address the unprecedented loss of seagrass Zostera marina (eelgrass), the concurrent decline in migratory Canada geese and its impact on fall goose harvest activities in Eeyou Istchee. After describing the history and context of the project, we discuss the challenges, complexities, and benefits of the collaborative approach balancing saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of the knowledge produced. We suggest the paper may be of use to researchers and partners seeking to engage in principled and actionable research related to environmental change including impacts of past development.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Leblanc, Melanie L
; Noisette, Fanny
; O'Connor, Mary
; Idrobo, Julián
; Bélanger, Simon
; del Giorgio, Paul A
; de Melo, Michaela
; Ehn, Jens K
; Giroux, Jean-François
; Gosselin, Michel
; Leblon, Brigitte; Neumeier, Urs
; Sorais, Manon
; Humphries, Murray M; Peck, Christopher; Davis, Kaleigh E
; Guzzi, Alessia
; Galindo, Virginie; LaRocque, Armand
; Dunn, Marc; Courcelles, Réal; Durocher, Carine; Gilbert, Jean-Philippe; Tapiatic, Robbie; Rabbitskin, Ernie; Zou Zou A. Kuzyk