Bridging Western and Indigenous Knowledges: Two-Eyed Seeing and the Development of a Country Food Strategy in the Northwest Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As governments in Canada usher in a new era of reconciliation, it is essential that they bring together Western and Indigenous (Traditional) knowledge, to ensure equitable representation of the two in the development of public policy. Public policy in Canada is developed within a Western paradigm and Two-Eyed Seeing, the practice of bringing together both Western and Traditional knowledge, offers an approach for agencies to bring in Indigenous voices and ways of knowing into policymaking. Up until now, there has been little analysis of the Two-Eyed Seeing approach in the literature, and limited application of the approach within policy development. In response to these gaps, this research examines how Two-Eyed Seeing can be used to inform a country food policy development process. It seeks to examine how Two-Eyed Seeing has been used in existing research and policy development, and looks to develop a framework to apply Two-Eyed Seeing in a policy process, using the Northwest Territories’ Country Food Strategy as a case study. Based on a systematic literature review, eight publications were identified that operationalized Two-Eyed Seeing. These publications were analyzed on how Two-Eyed Seeing was applied, highlighting the principles and methods used, such as incorporating Indigenous ceremonies, gathering Traditional knowledge from Elders and connecting findings to Indigenous teachings. The methods used at each phase of research and policy development were identified, providing guidance for the formulation of recommendations for the development of the Northwest Territories’ Country Food Strategy. These recommendations stem from the need to highlight the strengths of Traditional knowledge, and included methods such as community consultations through sharing circles, policymakers grounding themselves in culture through ceremony and consulting with an Elder advisory council. This research provides a framework for Two-Eyed Seeing to be operationalized in future policy development processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".