Research Advisory Group Meeting
March 2, 2015
Attending: Toddi Steelman, Graham Strickert, Tim Jardine, Greg Poelzer, Jennifer Fresque-Baxter, Kiri Staples
Regrets: Maureen Reed, Stuart Macmillan
Action Items
Task
Responsible
Meet to discuss next steps for Slave River Delta
Kiri, Toddi, Jen
Project
Discuss Project Development Group with SRDP
Kiri
members, draft invitation to PADEMP and SRDP
members to join group
E-mail to Tim, Graham and Evan to discuss
Kiri
Saskatchewan River Delta representation on Project
Development Group
Re-write Slave River Delta community coordinator
Jen
position, circulate to group
Meeting Minutes
1. Debrief from recent trips
a. SRDP open houses in Fort Resolution and Fort Smith

Open houses were held in response to concerns about information not getting to people and
meetings being broadly “closed door” – people wanted one-on-one interactions

Kiri and Veronica attended on behalf of the DDN

We held daytime trade show with art, research posters, etc. – researchers had chances to connect
with each other, as well as with community members

In the evening we had more traditional public lectures – they were well-advertised, but we had
hoped more people would come out. Nonetheless, we had some meaningful interactions and really
good opportunities for partnership and relationship building.

The events in Fort Smith were not as well attended as those in Fort Resolution

Had individual meetings as well – this was a chance for Kiri and Veronica to meet with SRDP
members
1

DDN presentation went well in terms of introducing people to who we are and what we are doing
generally. We didn’t get a lot of questions, but the feedback was generally positive. In the future it
might be helpful to have some concrete examples of “knowledge sharing” so it’s not quite as
abstract.
b. PADEMP Forum and Steering committee Meeting

At the PADEMP Forum Tim Heron raised DDN as example of type or work that the SRDP was
involved with that other groups could learn from – it’s good that these ideas are starting to filter out,
that we are starting to build these relationships

Toddi attended on behalf of the DDN

The Forum was attended by roughly 50-60 people, including 4-5 youth

Youth was big topic throughout the agenda

There were a number of presentations on work that is currently going on in PAD – e.g. muskrat
surveys, wetland monitoring , toxicity - by Environment Canada, different universities, Parks
Canada

Community members put presenters through their paces on why they were doing what they are
doing, why the projects were important to the community, and how they were involving community
members in their research

A lot of the work that has gone on in the PAD hasn’t fully or meaningfully represented the
community in the development of projects. The lack of meaningful or trusting relationships was
apparent. There was also a failure to include Traditional Knowledge – there’s no blending or
synthesis of knowledge systems, which is relevant to the concept of knowledge mobilization.

SRDP and DDN presentations were received very well – became part of the conversation around
where PADEMP should be going in the future

SRDP did a presentation on some of the youth involvement work they have been doing:
o Did an inquiry-based student learning process – met with Elders and scientists on the health
of the river delta, then students developed research questions and projects linked to the
community monitoring program, but focused on the environment as a whole (e.g. changes in
weather and TK, sewage, water sampling, muskrat populations)
o The projects were very student driven - they picked what was of interest to them based on
what they heard from Elders
o Students are now in the process of writing a book about this for credit in graphic design and
book editing. We will be having a community book launch some time in the future.
o Question: Why muskrat populations?
2

There have been suggestions/indications that muskrat populations are in decline
everywhere, but it is difficult to get numbers from trapping surveys. In the
Saskatchewan River Delta there are basically no muskrat from what we have been
hearing, and the Peace-Athabasca and Slave River deltas are having problems too.
This species is foundational culturally, economically, as a food source, etc., and
would make for rich conversation topic across different deltas.

Toddi had a chance to meet PADEMP members one-on-one

One of the interesting outcomes from the discussions that took place was the idea of utilizing the
DDN to connect youth across the delta. People were keen to see this happen and there was a lot of
interest in what’s being done by SRDP, PADEMP, and Evan’s work in Saskatchewan River Delta.
Might want to explore funding options and what a youth delta dialogue network might look like.
This could potentially dovetail with Delta Day 2016.
o In line with this, we just submitted an Insight Development Grant, written with the
Charlebois Community School in Cumberland House. We are trying to work with youth
over the next summer during the Cree Culture Camps that they hold. There was interest in
this theme from the Peace-Athabasca Delta, and they are starting to think about where we
could make connections across the different deltas.
2. Update on Slave River project and next steps

Student on Slave River and Delta project is transitioning to a new program, so we need to figure out
how this project should be carried out given that we still have interest and a budget for it. Kiri is
available to do some of this research, and Jen has a bit of time too. We need to have a plan for what
our next steps are.

Jen is going to be bringing on a co-op student from Brock University (Masters of Sustainability
program). We are still scoping out what they would be doing, but if there is interest or a need, they
could potentially be involved in the DDN work. The caveat is that the student wouldn’t be based in
the NWT, so field work would be challenging. Nonetheless, they could contribute to background
research, framework, etc. to alleviate the workload. Funds would be coming from ENR so it
wouldn’t be at additional cost.

Question: What were the methods that were being planned for this project?
o We hadn’t gotten to that yet – the scope of the project is still very broad and there is
definitely room to refine it
3
o Methods would influence the timeline and scope of the project. In general, they will
probably include interviews and document analysis, and potentially small focus groups or
other participatory methodologies.
o The co-op student wouldn’t help collect information, but could help develop materials (e.g.
interview guide)

The co-op student could also do a documentation of existing projects, so we know what we’ve got
and what questions still need to be asked
o This idea has come up before – we will look at the SRDP’s State of the Knowledge and
Vulnerability Assessment reports and look where the gaps are there.

Question: Are you trying to measure the process of research communication or the outcome?
o Probably both, but it’s still unclear. There is process in place, but we don’t know its efficacy,
and we won’t know outcome until we know process.
o It’s clear there is a breakdown in how scientists are communicating. In some cases what
researchers and community members are talking about aren’t far off from each other, it’s
that they have different value sets and research isn’t being framed in a way that is relevant to
communities. For example, if findings on the toxicity of snow melt were framed in terms of
impacting health, it might be easier to communicate to community members.
o SRDP talks a lot about contextualizing work – we have a process that we follow in trying to
understand how information gets to people in ways that are relevant and appropriate, but we
want to know how effective it is and if it could be done better

One idea would be to do a comparison of the status quo presentation by scientists, then re-work or
re-frame it and get feedback. Similar work has been done in the area of science communication.
o It would be helpful to understand what shapes the ways people uptake information.
o Would want to have a mix of different exercises, including an evaluative piece through
interviews.
o One way to do this would be to have a control and a non-control group - so if someone like
Tim (Jardine) did a presentation with key messages in the “status quo” style, then did a
different talk to a different group, framed in a different way. Doesn’t have to be a
presentation to university scholars – could have a panel of youth as an audience for example.
o There are a lot of different factors that influence how a message is communicated, not just
what’s on the slide – e.g. layout of table and chairs.
o If it was restricted by time/budget, you could focus on getting the mode of presentation right
first here and then test its efficacy in a community.
4
o However – this is a community driven project, and we want to make sure it continues to be
that way. We might want to be hesitant to bring it out of the community. There are lots of
different ideas, and they will have to be run through the community to see what works best.

Question: Has there been efforts to create a social network of who is coming to meetings, who is
presenting and what materials they are presenting?
o No, not formally
o Could be done informally for comparison at a later date to see how this changes over time.

Next steps will be to sketch out ideas for what this project might look like and bring them back to
group
o Action Item: Jen, Kiri, and Toddi will work on moving it forward before circulating it back
to the group. Anyone else is welcome to join as well.

This is a good opportunity to explore applied research now that it’s not bound by a thesis. We have
an opportunity to see what will serve the community the best.
3. Project Development Group update

This group will be made up of community member representatives, Toddi, Kiri and any graduate
students who wish to attend. It will be responsible for making sure we’re being responsive to
community desires.

Will have three people from each delta in the group. Several people at the PADMEP Forum (2 from
the PAD and 2 from the SRDP) were interested in participating.

Need to be cautious of making sure all of the different groups are represented fairly

Action Item: Kiri will call different SRDP representatives to given them background information
about the group and gauge interest. We will then put out a general call for participation to SRDP.
PADEMP members have a general idea of the group, based on Toddi’s presentation, so we will put
out call to them as well.

Would like to have this group in place by April

In the Saskatchewan River Delta we will have to figure out who can represent there – potentially
some of the same people who are already involved in different research projects. Action Item: Kiri
will send an e-mail to Graham, Tim and Evan so we can start having a conversation about who to
reach out to and how. Because there is no formal group in the SKD, it will have to representation
from Chief and Council and Mayor and Council. There is some stuff in the works to get a
stewardship group together, but this is still coming together.
4. Community coordinator positions
5

Would like to make the community coordinator position open to both Fort Smith and Fort
Resolution, and then use money from last year to have an addition position(s) for a coordinator
trainee position. This would give younger people an opportunity to apply, and an open call could be
sent to both communities.

The GNWT allocated money for a Community Coordinator position, but this money needs to be
spent before March. Thus far we have been paying Kiri’s wage out of Toddi’s Director’s Research
budget, so we will instead use the GWNT money to pay for Kiri’s wage and travel. This will free up
money in the Director’s Research budget to pay for the research trainee position. This is effectively
a change in allocation for the GNWT money, rather than in funds.

Action Item: Jen will re-write community coordinator job description to include these changes, then
send out to SRDP.
5. Presentations

Tim presented on SWEEP at the Canadian Water Network Watershed Consortium Group – others in
the consortium are struggling with the science/policy interface, so we are ahead of the game in that
sense

Tim presented on his work in the Saskatchewan River Delta and SWEEP, Kiri presented on the
DDN at the Global Institute for Water Security annual meeting

A concern going forward is how to package and present this work to the academic community and
funders – need products for this

Progress with communities is slow and steady – still work to be done in making sure they are
getting the info they need

Kiri and Evan presented to SaskPower representatives
o There was a question about SaskPower representation in research projects. This is something
to think about, because there are pros and cons to this. On the one hand it would be helpful
to bring industry and communities together in a dialogue, but we don’t want to alienate
communities that don’t trust industry.
o There would be added value to bringing SaskPower people to experience the delta in a
positive way, as outsiders - creating opportunities for interaction outside of the negotiating
table is where people’s perspectives will change
o Need to discuss this more in the future
Tabled for future discussions:

Peer-reviewed publications
6

Relationship with SaskPower

Delta Day 2016

Partnership Grant
7