Four Stories

Frustration

An absolute turning point in the creation of the Indigenous Strategy was during the writing retreat at Fort Calgary. I remember that first day, we had all the information collected from the stories we heard. We had the discussions from the three community dialogues. We had the survey data, focus group data, and information from the internal and external scans. We had everything. Yet we couldn’t pull it together in any way that was coherent. And I remember spending a lot of time trying to come at this from very Western angles. A pivotal moment was when Shawna casually started talking about the cycles of trickster stories as pedagogy. That brought the Indigenous side of the parallel paths back into the conversation and propelled the writing of the strategy. And, as we went through that conversation about trickster pedagogy, somehow everything just kind of naturally opened up. I think it was because we again paused and determined that, by envisioning the information gathered through an Indigenous conceptual model, parallel paths emerged.

Jackie Sieppert

Storytelling through Symbols

We hosted a special dialogue with Elders to seek permission to use cultural symbols for our strategy. During the meeting, I recall one of the Elders saying “I’m going to be so happy when I can look at the strategy and not have to read. I will see the symbols and know from the symbols what the strategy is about, what it means, and what is being done.” The symbols became a more authentic way of sharing, and the storytelling elements of the strategy fit beautifully within those symbols in a very meaningful way. Our conversations with Elders gave us the support and permission we needed to move forward with the translation of our conceptual model into cultural symbols. We had the great privilege of listening, learning, and witnessing cultural translation unfold in real time.

Shawna Cunningham

Moving beyond Fear

Early on, we decided to take a trip down south to Red Crow College to meet with the Elders. It was one of the most memorable moments of the journey towards creating the strategy. During that meeting, Elder Andy Black Water advised, “Whatever you do, don’t create something that people are afraid of. That is what happened to Indigenous communities.” And he said, “Don’t create something where people look at us Indigenous peoples with pity. We don’t want to be pitied. We have pride, and we want to be engaged. We want to be part of something.” We talked about that advice all the way back to Calgary. If we had to pick pivotal moments in the whole process, Elder Andy’s guidance would be one of them.

Shawna Cunningham and Jackie Sieppert

Reconciliation

Indigenization from my perspective is centring and uplifting Indigenous peoples or knowledges—our ways of knowing, being, and doing. Because of where this knowledge resides, Indigenous peoples must lead that work. Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies focus on healthy and dynamic relationships and continuous renewal. Indigenization is a healing force, whereas decolonization is a collective responsibility because we’re all affected by the colonial mindset. We must work together to challenge demeaning and divisive policies or behaviours. I see decolonization as a force that challenges inequality, inequity, and the dehumanization of beings. And both of these—decolonization and indigenization—lead to deeper forms of reconciliation. The creation of the Indigenous Strategy needed intentional and tangible indigenization and decolonization commitments and efforts to make way for reconciliation, a force that embodies peace, friendship, and respect.

Jacqueline Ottmann

Conceptualizing the Strategy

The process of Bringing the Stories Home resulted in a multi-layered, complicated combination of stories and data to guide the development of the University of Calgary’s Indigenous Strategy. We knew that integrating all the information into a coherent, sensitive strategy would present a significant challenge. To fulfill institutional requirements and expectations, we anticipated that a written strategy would articulate both principles and recommendations for the university community. We also committed mindfully to an indigenized version of the written strategy as part of our parallel process. Several conversations occurred in early 2017 to determine how to best fulfill these dual commitments.

Members of the Indigenous Strategy Working Group were tasked with integrating relevant information, developing core components of the strategy, and making specific recommendations to the Indigenous Task Force to take forward to the university community. This strategy had to be presented in a manner consistent with other university strategies. That is, a formal strategy document would be prepared and submitted for review and approval through the usual university governance processes.

To begin the process of writing the strategy, available members of the Working Group attended a writing retreat at Fort Calgary on March 25 and 26, 2017. The first day involved a series of facilitated discussions aimed at developing a framework for the core strategy. This process utilized a mind-mapping process to articulate key concepts and linkages among core ideas for the strategy. The group struggled significantly in the conversation since the complexity of the task led to numerous possible directions for and dimensions of the conversation—many seemingly disconnected from one another. The group left the first day of the writing retreat without any meaningful progress toward a viable framework.

The second day initially began much as the first day had. Members of the Working Group, spread across several tables, explored disparate conceptual models for the strategy, yet none seemed to coalesce into a workable model. However, a morning conversation about Indigenous knowledge systems, and the need to transform the university, resulted in a breakthrough that led to an initial conceptual model for the strategy. An animated conversation about trickster pedagogy sparked the necessary shift for the Working Group.

Indigenous knowledge systems tend to emulate laws of the universe and the natural cycles therein. Within this context, transformation and renewal are conceptually parallel to cycles of chaos and order. In this light, “constructive disruption” (Scrimshaw 2021)¹ might be a necessary element of transformative processes or cycles of “universal flux” (Little Bear 2000, 78) in which “chaos is both movement and evolution” and “the field from which all things come into being” (Cajete 2000, 15). Traditional trickster oratory reflects this dynamic cycle of order-chaos-order in which the trickster journeys through cycles of transformation and renewal, teaching us that we are part of a larger cycle of constant non-linear transformation and evolutionary change in an interconnected universe. The experience or journey of transformation might be uncomfortable, unpredictable, and full of tension, yet it reflects necessary flux derived from the natural laws of the universe.

The conversation about trickster pedagogy excited the Working Group as they realized the innate value of framing the foundations of the strategy within concepts of natural law and the inextricable interconnectedness of the Creator to the cosmos, nature (including the land), and people. Early in that conversation, the group also realized that such a framework created an opportunity to incorporate principles of evolution, growth, and life itself. They saw the opportunity to structure a strategy that emphasized conscious evolution over a prolonged period rather than revolutionary and reactionary shifts over the short term. This was not an avoidance of the need to change the institution in fundamental ways but a realization that change would happen through the long and deliberate process of building relationships and partnerships with Indigenous communities.

The second day of the writing retreat continued to play out very differently from the first day. An animated discussion of “four ps” focused on the people, programs, practices, and places that would need to be contemplated and integrated in an Indigenous Strategy. From there, the group shifted to discussing core aspects of how universities work, including the “knowledge” of educational and research processes, the daily practices that make universities function, the process of building relationships within and beyond postsecondary institutions, and the unique characteristics that help to define a university’s identity. The group concluded that an authentic and meaningful Indigenous Strategy should have impacts in all of those areas. The group also recognized that fully accepting these shifts would require an institutional commitment to ongoing processes of transformation and renewal and that such a transformation needed to be guided by a safe and open dialogue with Indigenous communities. As these ideas progressed through the day, the conversation became increasingly animated. It was a celebratory moment marked by music, singing, sharing of food, and a collective sense that we could in fact craft a strong strategy.

By the end of that second day, the Working Group had the core elements of a strategy framework identified and connected to one another. The group created a visual model putting these pieces together and labelled it the strategy’s conceptual model. It was the strategy’s initial foundation, and it served as the starting point for developing parallel paths to make real an Indigenous Strategy for the institution.

The Conceptual Model

The initial conceptual model identified both primary principles foundational to the strategy and specific, concrete components that the Working Group believed were essential for the institution to develop. The foundational components of the conceptual model were identified as members of the Working Group discussed Indigenous worldviews regarding how the universe functioned.

This included a discussion on how constant dynamic cycles of transformation and renewal might shape the strategy. From those Indigenous perspectives, transformation and renewal are not only ever present but also necessary and ongoing cycles of life. This is evident in the natural world and all of creation. Change is always evident and necessary.

The conceptual model that emerged during the first stages of writing the Indigenous Strategy was based on what we heard during our community consultations. The model articulated four key areas for the strategy: ways of knowing, doing, connecting, and being (see Figure 1). Each of the visionary circles was considered fundamental to our journey, and each was reflective of the stories and data gathered during our developmental journey. We imagined and labelled these focus areas as dynamic visionary circles. Each circle would be a core focus, a nexus of ongoing dedicated work to understand and implement the strategy. We also understood that each visionary circle needed to be actively engaged in a conscious process of transformation and renewal—addressing challenges, developing initiatives, and assessing success to ensure the long-term implementation of the strategy.

Because none of the visionary circles can be considered in isolation, the conceptual model also incorporated a foundational commitment to process. Called shared space and based on the concept of ethical space, this commitment reflects an understanding that the institution needs to engage Indigenous communities through authentic relationships based on mutual standing, benefit, and trust. As Willie Ermine (2007, 203) suggests, this kind of ethical space depends on a process in which competing worldviews or “disparate systems” come together for meaningful engagement to create something new. Ermine notes that, given the history of colonization, which perpetuates the status quo, the creation of an ethical space of engagement “will be a challenging and arduous task,” requiring mutual respect and a true desire to engage in an equitable cross-cultural dialogue that affirms rather than conforms “human diversity” (201, 202). Ermine further explains that an

. . . “ethical space” is formed when two societies, with disparate worldviews, are poised to engage each other. It is the thought about diverse societies and the space in between them that contributes to the development of a framework for dialogue between human communities. . . . The new partnership model of the ethical space, in a cooperative spirit between Indigenous peoples and Western institutions, will create new currents of thought that flow in different directions of legal discourse and overrun the archaic ways of interaction. (193)

Our sense of shared space marks an intentional commitment to create a space within the strategy for ongoing dialogue and active listening. It was Ermine’s concept of ethical engagement and his notion of “parallel existence” (2007, 196) that we thought would both fuel and inform our work across the four visionary circles.

The concepts of cyclical journeys of transformation and renewal together with the adoption of shared space resulted in a key realization related to the process of creating the Indigenous Strategy. At every level, we determined that the strategy would reflect an ontology of two cultures walking together on a journey of parallel pathways. Neither dominant Eurocentric nor Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems could be given precedence. Nor could they be integrated into a single approach, for doing so would create what Dr. Reg Crowshoe calls “cultural confusion.”

The initial articulation of the Indigenous Strategy was based on the conceptual model envisaged during the Working Group’s writing retreat. For several weeks, we continued to have more detailed conversations about which aspects of knowing, doing, connecting, and being might shift at the University of Calgary and how they would translate into specific recommendations for change. However, in one of those conversations, Dr. Nancy Pollock-Ellwand—the former dean of the Faculty of Environmental Design and a member of the Working Group—commented on the potential use of Indigenous imagery within the strategy. She rightly and passionately argued that, if we were to truly honour parallel paths, any use of Indigenous imagery had to be far more than art decorating a written document. Basing our work on the conceptual model alone would mean adopting a Eurocentric, written model. A more symbolic and Indigenous-centred way of articulating the strategy was also necessary. This step had to incorporate more than Indigenous symbols and artwork—it had to tell the same story in an authentic Indigenous way.

This specific conversation sparked a new and exciting phase of the strategy’s development. Decolonization of the conceptual model required that we have a more in-depth conversation with the Elders to seek guidance, ensure that we were following appropriate cultural protocols, ask for cultural interpretations of symbols that reflected meaning within a parallel framework, and request permissions to incorporate them into a truly parallel model for the Indigenous Strategy.

Indigenizing the Conceptual Model

There is much academic discourse on the theoretical concepts of decolonization and indigenization. In light of the ever-evolving lexicon associated with the call for reconciliation in Canada, Jacqueline Ottmann shared her interpretation of indigenization and decolonization with those of us working on the Indigenous Strategy. She suggested that the movement of decolonization is attuned to a cleansing process in which we all have responsibility. In conversations with the co-chairs of the Indigenous Strategy Task Force, Ottmann often stated that, on the one hand, “decolonization is a force that challenges demeaning and divisive legislations, policies, regulations, belief systems, actions, but the heavy lifting to realize systemic change associated with reconciliation primarily falls to non-Indigenous peoples. Indigenization, on the other hand, is a healing force since Indigenous worldviews are grounded in relationality and interconnectedness.” Throughout our journey, she often reminded us that cultural resurgence and indigenization draw from Indigenous knowledge systems and languages and should be led by Indigenous peoples. During the Bringing the Stories Home stage of our journey, she also shared that this work can be challenging and likened the resolve required to move from truth to reconciliation, and from decolonization to reconciliation, to a buffalo moving through a storm. Ottmann explained that buffalo do not avoid a storm by finding shelter or veering around it; rather, they face it head on as a herd, as a community, until they reach the other side. The work of co-creating an Indigenous Strategy, through parallel pathways, was not easy, and there were many examples of “jagged worlds colliding” (Little Bear 2000) and ongoing instances of colonial resistance.

To understand the strategy through an Indigenous lens, the Working Group engaged Elders and sought their advice and permission to translate the conceptual model into a decolonized traditional model, based on Indigenous ways of knowing. Historical cultural symbols that reflected the Indigenous peoples of the region are recorded across the land in pictographs and petroglyphs. In many ways for the university, translating key concepts of the strategy into cultural symbols was like being in uncharted waters, with no preconceived notion of what might happen. In other words, we did not presume that every core epistemological element of the conceptual model would result in a direct parallel within an Indigenous system of knowledge creation and dissemination. The cultural model uncovered the complexity of multi-layered, interconnected concepts through an Indigenous worldview.

The realization of a cultural model for the strategy was a critical milestone highlighting the profoundness of Indigenous knowledge, the possibility of transformation, and our collective responsibility for reconciliation. This was an exciting shift in terms of how the university typically conveys, presents, and articulates strategic pillars. Requesting and arriving at indigenization of the conceptual model required extensive conversations with Traditional Knowledge Keepers and observances of specific and required cultural protocols. Guidance by and leadership from Traditional Knowledge Keepers ensured the appropriate and respectful inclusion of the selected cultural symbols. To develop a parallel cultural model, the Working Group first approached Traditional Knowledge Keeper Reg Crowshoe for guidance. After discussing aspects of the conceptual model and the need for an authentic way to express these ideas through an Indigenous worldview, the group realized that appropriate protocols had to be honoured in the process. Permission to proceed in this direction needed to be granted by a circle of Elders who had both the knowledge and the rights to traditional Indigenous designs and symbols.

As a first step in these protocols, three members of the Working Group travelled to Red Crow Community College to discuss the strategy and its cultural model with Blackfoot Elders. In a full-day conversation, the Elders supported the idea of developing a cultural model for the strategy. They also offered guidance on the nature of such a strategy and expressed their hopes for the positive impacts that it would have in higher education. After that initial conversation, we invited several Elders to the University of Calgary for another conversation on cultural symbolism and Indigenous design. The second conversation focused on protocols and permissions required for us to move forward with this idea. Members of the Working Group asked Elders, “This is what we’re thinking. Can we do this? And how do we do this in a good way so that we’re being respectful?” The Elders quickly recognized the importance and power of a cultural model and supported the idea. They granted permission to further develop the model. This was a pivotal and powerful moment in the process of developing the strategy. Some Elders appreciated how cultural symbols, used authentically, could enable the sharing of the strategy’s story in a very different way.

The Elders directed the Working Group to begin a process of cultural translation with two Indigenous leaders, Elder Reg Crowshoe and Lee Crowchild, the former Chief of the Tsuut’ina Nation. Chief Crowchild had supported the University of Calgary by creating the Winter Count/cultural symbols for its Spo’pi Solar House.² To support the creative context, the meeting with Traditional Knowledge Keeper Crowshoe and Chief Crowchild to discuss the design of the cultural model for the Indigenous Strategy was held, appropriately, at the Spo’pi House. Chief Crowchild offered teachings about the significance of cultural designs and explained the Winter Count symbols painted on the canvas covering the ceiling of the Spo’pi House. Elder Crowshoe then led an interpretive discussion on the conceptual model for the Indigenous Strategy while culturally translating meaning and drawing parallel symbols. For each drawing, he provided cultural teachings and indicated conceptual parallels through symbolic representation. His teachings also focused on how the symbols related to one another and what they meant, both individually and collectively. From this dialogue, the cultural model emerged, and the story of ii’ taa’poh’to’p began to unfold.

The buffalo image (Figure 2) was gifted to the university’s Indigenous strategy by Amelia Crowshoe for use with the cultural symbols. It represents the collective journey of developing and implementing the strategy. The rights to incorporate all the other symbols into the strategy were transferred in a ceremony. The process of developing a cultural model for the strategy was deeply rooted in ceremony. The Elders who were part of our journey provided extensive and generous support over several months to guide the design of the parallel cultural model for the strategy. The result enabled the ability to overlay the conceptual and cultural models with one another.

The Cultural Model

The inclusion of the cultural model in the Indigenous Strategy is a fundamental manifestation of the parallel processes used to develop the strategy. It provides a non-textual knowledge transfer that mirrors the text in the conceptual model. However, it can also stand alone. In its entirety or in select components, the cultural model can be used to illustrate the strategy’s aspirations, stories, themes, goals, and initiatives in various strategy-related documents and websites.

The University of Calgary’s (2017b, 10–11) Indigenous Strategy document provides a full overview of the cultural model: “The following cultural symbols gifted for use in this Strategy are reflective of Indigenous pictographs and petroglyphs from sacred archaeological sites in southern Alberta. The symbols are an essential part of the parallel journey toward an Indigenous Strategy. They need to be understood from within a specific Indigenous cultural context that is distinct from contemporary or postcolonial interpretations.”

The cultural model represents far more than a collection of Indigenous symbols. The generation of its images resulted from a series of dialogues with Traditional Knowledge Keepers and is inherently grounded in cultural protocols. The final selection, design, and configuration of cultural symbols and their associated teachings were transferred to the University of Calgary through a ceremony led by Traditional Knowledge Keeper Dr. Reg Crowshoe. Although it is difficult here to adequately articulate the full meanings of these symbols, Figure 4 (see page 145) provides a starting point from which to understand each of the symbols from the cultural model (University of Calgary 2017b, 10–11).

Power and meaning are deeply rooted in adopting the parallel conceptual and cultural models, which are visually distinct yet conceptually aligned. The cultural model retains the contextual meaning of the conceptual model and conveys the story of the Indigenous Strategy through symbolic representation. Physically, the models can overlay one another or be viewed side by side, enriching meaning through a decolonized lens of Indigenous symbolism. In approaching the strategy from these parallel ways, the conceptual and cultural models effectively support and uphold one another. Yet the two models do so without trying to merge into a single way of understanding the strategy. Their distinctive assumptions, cultural understandings, and worldviews also mean that each can stand alone, articulating the strategy and its goals in different ways. Together, the two models add deeper layers of meaning and commitment to the University of Calgary’s parallel journey. Figure 3 depicts the final version of the cultural model.

The legend below provides a narrative description for each of the symbols in the cultural model:

	Transformation — (the Journey). This cultural symbol represents “the ceremonial leader or holy person.” The symbol reflects that our transformation is a progressive and evolutionary journey, guided by Traditional Knowledge Keepers, and validated through ceremony.
	Renewal — (the People). This cultural symbol represents human beings seeking change and renewal. In a ceremonial context, this symbol reflects the process of renewal through ceremonial reflection, leading to self-actualization. The symbol is applied to the university as a living entity.
	Ways of Knowing — (Teaching, Learning, and Research). This cultural symbol represents the Sun, the giver of life. The Sun represents knowledge and enlightenment. In the context of academia, the symbol reflects theoretical concepts, epistemology, and pedagogy related to teaching, learning, and research.
	Ways of Doing — (Policies, Procedures, and Practices). This cultural symbol represents parallel practices and protocols in terms of Indigenous ways of doing and practicing, including the concept of doing things “in a good way.” The Pipe represents validated processes and agreements, and the smudge is a ceremonial process for clearing the path or a “calling to order.”
	Ways of Connecting — (Relationships, Partnerships, Connections to Land, and Place). This cultural symbol represents the sun, a bundle on a tripod, and the land. Taken as a whole, the symbol signifies respectful relationships and interconnectedness, based on Indigenous epistemology and principles related to communal responsibility and reciprocity. The symbol acknowledges the place (tipi) we gather to exchange ideas (sun), to form alliances (partnerships) and initiate, strengthen, or renew relationships (bundle).
	Ways of Being — (Campus Identity, Inclusivity, Leadership, and Engagement). This cultural symbol represents community as a whole, and is inclusive of all human beings and living entities. It also reflects ancestors, present community members, and future generations. The symbol is based on principles of communal responsibility and reciprocity and reflects concepts of respect, dignity, honesty, and inclusivity.
	Shared Space — (the Ethical Space). This cultural symbol, an open tipi canvas with the symbol of the Morning Star, represents the shared, ethical space for dialogue — an equitable place that is inclusive, respectful, and exploratory; a safe place to share ideas that help guide and shape the process of renewal and transformation.

Figure 4: Legend, Cultural Model.

Our Core Principles

In writing the Indigenous Strategy document, members of the Working Group and Steering Committee realized that several principles needed to be foundational pillars of the university’s journey toward reconciliation. These pillars, listed below, draw from concepts of the ethical space of engagement (Ermine 2007) and ethical relationality (Donald 2016) as captured in a more common Indigenous saying, “together in a good way.” Additional key principles, governed by the natural laws of the universe, reflect a cyclical journey of transformation and renewal (Cajete 2000).

Together in a Good Way

The Indigenous Strategy is based on a fundamental guiding principle to travel the path toward reconciliation “in a good way” (University of Calgary 2017b, 13). This is an important concept that many Indigenous peoples use, and it refers to working relationships conducted in authentic, respectful, and meaningful ways. Working in a good way requires intention, sincerity, humility, reciprocity, and mutually beneficial relationships. It is a demonstration of commitment, clarity, integrity, honour, moral strength, and communal spirit.

At its most basic level, the promise to work together in a good way reflects the recognition that the power and dynamics that have shaped postsecondary institutions must change. This process of developing truly authentic and reciprocal relationships with Indigenous communities will not be easy or rapid. Instead, it will demand willingness to reimagine core university structures and processes. It will require constant reflection, adjustment, and power sharing in educational and research processes. It must also be imagined as a long-term process of building relationships. In their deliberations, the Working Group characterized this process as a generational evolution—requiring learning, patience, and dedication over many years and perhaps decades.

From this foundational principle, we constructed the strategy document using the concepts of transformation, renewal, and shared space. We did so to ensure that the strategy reflected Indigenous understandings of dynamic and universal cycles—natural laws of change, adaptation, and evolution. Each of these concepts also formed the heart of the strategy’s conceptual and cultural models. They are therefore considered integral to the entire journey of reconciliation.

Transformation

As acknowledged in developing the strategy’s original conceptual model, the Task Force determined that walking this path would require significant transformation at the University of Calgary. We conceptualized that work across the four core areas: Ways of Being, Ways of Knowing, Ways of Doing, and Ways of Connecting. Although many specific actions and changes would be required across these areas, we saw these actions and changes as being both evolutionary and developmental. That is, the university would need to engage in reflection, formal review, and evaluation as various components of the strategy were developed and implemented.

In considering the kinds of transformation required within the institution, we articulated a series of important changes (University of Calgary 2017b, 13). Conversations about change began by ensuring that Indigenous faculty, staff, and students see themselves reflected on the University of Calgary campus. During our dialogues, we heard that Indigenous peoples were under-represented in our community and that the institution needed to increase representation of Indigenous faculty, staff, and students. There was a need to shift the very identity of the institution to reflect this new, parallel pathway.

Another fundamental aspect of anticipated transformation focused on the ways in which many individuals from the dominant culture need to change negative attitudes toward and affective conceptualizations of Indigenous peoples. This change encompasses both learning about the histories of Indigenous peoples in Canada and combatting myths of and racist perspectives on Indigenous peoples. The need for this transformation was a regular and powerful theme in the narrative data collected throughout the dialogues and community engagement. There was also some urgency in achieving this transformation since shifting these attitudes, values, and beliefs was seen as a prerequisite to developing authentic relationships.

Finally, the concept of transformation recognizes that core functions of the institution—education and knowledge creation—need to change. The institution must create genuine, open spaces for Indigenous stories, methodologies and pedagogies, traditions, and languages. This in turn demands shared decision making in areas that affect Indigenous education and strategies to make Indigenous peoples an integral part of the campus community.

Renewal

The process of developing mutually beneficial, reciprocal relationships with Indigenous peoples will be long and involve ongoing learning and change at the university. We anticipate a constant process of renewal, a reflection of natural laws of the universe. To accomplish such renewal, we suggest that our institution must develop and adopt a sustainable plan for change. It would require clear actions, detailed steps of implementation, and a process for renewed commitment and priority setting. This process of renewal would commit the university to routinely evaluate its progress, shift direction when necessary, and bind itself to the process of indigenization. It is a process that would require designated leadership and accountability, resource allocation, and core infrastructure to succeed.

Shared Space

A final and central commitment in the Indigenous Strategy is based on the recognition that Eurocentric and Indigenous worldviews are profoundly different. This recognition also acknowledges the power differentials evident in the historical relationships between postsecondary institutions and Indigenous peoples. To work through these complex and often difficult dynamics, a process to develop mutual respect, goal setting, and learning is necessary. The process of indigenization would require creating parallel paths for Eurocentric and Indigenous worldviews and knowledges while retaining both as distinct. This would be a process of ongoing dialogue and deepening understanding, of creating “shared” or “ethical” space. The Indigenous Strategy commits the university to the creation of a shared space that will bring Traditional Knowledge Keepers and thought leaders together with senior university leaders for open, authentic, and ongoing dialogue about how to best indigenize the University of Calgary. This dialogue was also thought to be critical in informing and shaping implementation of the strategy.

The Spirit of ii’ taa’poh’to’p

Within the university, all institutional strategies become living documents that require time, commitment, and nourishment. This is also true when considering strategy from an Indigenous perspective. However, within an Indigenous worldview, the strategy—once named in ceremony—takes on another layer of meaning that includes concepts of holism and interconnectedness. It has a spirit. It becomes our relative. Since it is our relative, it falls to the university community to take responsibility to care for and nurture the strategy through ceremonial and reciprocal processes of validation and renewal.