Academic literature on the topic 'Anishinaabe Worldview'

The fields of ecological engineering, resilience research, and Anishinaabe culture share strong epistemological relationships and common principles. These alignments can be found in worldview, ways of learning, traditional indigenous ecosystem engineering methods, and governance. This article explores how recognizing these alignments enables Anishinaabe cultural knowledge and ways of being to inform and provide the foundation for contemporary engineered design. It also proposes the use of a biocultural engineering design method that integrates the design principles of ecological engineering with indigenous knowledge, cultural relationships, values, and decision-making processes to support contemporary sustainable nation-building.

Indigenous research paradigms are congruent to Indigenous worldviews and have become more dominant in areas such as Indigenous policy and education. As Indigenous research paradigms continue to gain momentum, the historical legacy of unethical research is addressed as more Indigenous communities and organizations develop their own research protocols. There is a plethora of articles explaining Indigenous research methodologies, but few examine the inclusion of the knowledge from Elders, language speakers, and Indigenous women in sustainable water governance. My Indigenous research methodology draws on the works of Indigenous scholars Shawn Wilson, Linda Smith, and Margaret Kovach, with specific focus on Wendy Geniusz’s Biskaabiiyang. My Indigenous research methodology is specific to the Anishinaabe territory of the Great Lakes region and includes Anishinaabek Elders, Anishinaabemowin (Ojibway language) speakers, and Anishinaabek women. This article seeks to contribute to Indigenous research paradigms and methods by elucidating the importance of engaging Anishinaabek Elders, Anishinaabemowin speakers, and Anishinaabek women in sustainable water governance.

Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2) guides knowledge production and dissemination in Canada. While it is intended to protect vulnerable populations from harm, it fails to consider Anishinaabe worldviews and, by extension, to effectively direct ethical water research with aquatic plant life. Using Anishinaabe oral testimony and oral stories, Niisaachewan Anishinaabe Nation (NAN) and the University of Guelph (UofG) co-developed a culturally sensitive field protocol to respect Manomin (Wild Rice) as an other-than-human being and guide research into Manomin restoration. By illuminating key directives from NAN, this article showcases the limitations of institutional ethics in Canada. It concludes with recommendations to broaden TCPS2 to better address Anishinaabe teachings about plant and animal relations, but ultimately challenges institutional Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to relinquish control and respect Indigenous Nations’ right to govern research within their territories.

Abstract: The process of Indigenous research methodologies has existed within the Anishinaabe worldview for over a millennium. The Anishinaabe-centric author presents and highlights a pathway of Indigenous research methodologies, and critically analyses research, pedagogy and attachment through an Indigenous research methodology. Indigenous research lives within the Anishinaabe language as a cultural process for understanding purpose, in addition to understanding the specific gifts unknown to the researcher. This article identifies Anishinaabe Gikendaasowin as a manner of centring oneself within one’s cultural worldview. Indigenous research methodologies contain intrinsic processes of critical cultural construct development, critical content analysis,ceremony and cultural attachment. This article further explores colonial worldview impacts on Indigenous peoples and the misapplication of that research and its influence on educational paradigms. Finally, an Anishinaabe scholarly exemplar is presented that provides tangible steps for incorporating spirit knowledge into positive, innovative and pedagogical Indigenous lessons. Indigenous research sovereignty requires consent when researching our Anishinaabe sacred practice-based evidence. As a result, Indigenous research methodologies will often start with the act of cultural grounding. Cultural grounding in research is not a new concept. In the Anishinaabe language, manidoo waabiwin can translate into seeing things in a spiritual way. This spiritual wayis the bridge to understanding, appreciating and attaching to a construct or phenomenon within an Indigenous way of knowing journey. There are many different manners to grounding one’s spiritual research work that range from offering tobacco to the aatsokaanug (inadequately translated as spirits), and to the participation in cultural activities, both of which will often promote spiritual awareness or manido waabiwin. This critical Indigenous research methodologies article highlights Anishinaabe Gikendaasowin, or Anishinaabe knowledge or ways of knowing that centres within Anishinaabe worldview. This article is embedded in Anishinaabe knowledge and can be considered Anishinaabe-centric.

In Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe language), Kipimoojikewin refers to our inheritance, or the things we carry with us. While Anishinaabemowin, Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) pedagogy and research practices are all part of our inheritance, so too is a legacy of colonial violence and historic trauma. This paper details one journey towards the language; the struggle through a colonial terrain rife with institutional and cognitive barriers, the journey to return to Anishinaabe ways of knowing, to articulating Anishinaabe pedagogy in a contemporary urban context and the work done to fulfill the vision of the Elders. There are no “best practices” only stories that exemplify an Anishinaabe axiological framework so that the causes and effects can be better understood, taken up and improved upon. Aapajitoon kema wanitoon.

Ending colonialism requires the revitalization of not only indigenous systems of law, but also the indigenous legalities of which they form part. This means that Canada’s unique form of liberal constitutionalism cannot serve as the constitutional framework within which indigenous law is revitalized. Rather, we shall have to advert to the fact that indigenous law was and is generated by unique indigenous legal processes and institutions, which find their authorization in unique indigenous constitutional orders, which are in turn legitimated by indigenous peoples’ unique and varied creation stories. Through the gifts of diverse Anishinaabe writers and orators, and through work with my circle of elders, with aadizookaanan, in community, and on the land, I present one view of Anishinaabe legality. I give special emphasis to its earth-centric ‘rooted’ form of constitutionalism, which is characterized by mutual aid and its correlate structure, kinship. In the second half, I examine the problem of colonial violence in contemporary indigenous-settler relationships. I identify two principles necessary for indigenous-settler reconciliation and I consider how commonly proposed models of indigenous-settler relationship fare against them. I conclude that one vision of treaty, treaty mutualism—which is a form of rooted constitutionalism—is non-violent to indigenous peoples, settler peoples and to the earth. Finally, I consider counter-arguments on themes of fundamentalism, power, and misreading.<br>Graduate