Research Advisory Group Meeting
June 30 th
, 2015
Attending : Toddi Steelman, Graham Strickert, Tim Jardine, Jennifer Fresque-Baxter, Stuart
Macmillan, Greg Poelzer, Evan Andrews, Sarah Baines, Kiri Staples
Regrets : Stuart Macmillan, Maureen Reed, Greg Poelzer
Action Items
Task Responsible
Changes to annual report Kiri
Kiri Create standard slide clarifying where our budget comes from and relationship between different partners
Explore options for matching funding for Connection Grant
Follow up with community coordinators and finance re: phone costs
Toddi
Kiri
Update draft agenda and funding request letter, circulate to group
Kiri
Meeting Minutes
1.
Update since last meeting a.
Project Development Group

The Project Development Group had its first meeting at the end of May.
There was good representation from all three deltas. Because it was the first meeting, we mainly just introduced people to each other and the projects we are working on. We had also had some time for discussion and questions. One of the topics that had a lot of traction with the group was youth. There are still some outstanding decisions to make based on what was discussed at the meeting, but this was a good step forward.

 This was the first official “non-academic” networking opportunity. We are hoping that there will be another meeting in August. b.
Canadian Association of Geographers annual meeting

Kiri and Jen worked on a presentation (which Kiri presented) about the
DDN and knowledge mobilization framework. She gave an overview of the DDN, but focused on the knowledge mobilization piece in the Slave
River Delta. It was well-received in general, and people made a few comments about how they think this could be useful for their own work.
There was one question about the use of the term knowledge mobilization being a “fad” term. However, this highlights the importance of unpacking such a term and what it means in a practical setting.

We have been working on moving the SRDP project forward. Although we are still using the term knowledge mobilization, our focus has been on the “impact” of knowledge, in terms of saliency, legitimacy and credibility (language that was used in the original grant application), as well as how people use and uptake information. Using different categories of the framework we will look at different case studies to unpack ideas about how/why people make decisions about sharing knowledge and whether it is effective.

We are proposing using focus groups, and possibly some survey work with youth, followed by a co-validation process. We are starting to put the pieces together to get the ball rolling on this. Jen is writing a synopsis document for the SRDP in order to get feedback, and Kiri, Jen, and Toddi are working on the survey and focus group questions. Documents for ethics and research license processes are also being put together.

Evan also presented on his work at the CAGS meeting. His session focused on participation in natural resource management, and his project contributed to thinking about who is being engaged and how they are being engaged in these processes. There was a good discussion and lots of feedback.


This meeting seemed to be a good forum to present at – might be something Sarah could think about next year. c.
Coming Home Celebration

Kiri, Evan, Toddi, and Jacqui (the research assistant) all attended the
Coming Home celebration in Cumberland House. In order to hire students we had them put together video applications where they talked about what the delta meant to them. During the event they had iPads and audio recorders, and captured the celebration event using video, photography, and short interviews. One thing that was nice to see was that the DDN project was something that Lily and others at the school picked up and ran with in terms of situating themselves with the other deltas. We now have around 50 interviews and lots of video and pictures. We now have to manage and analyze what we have before we go back to the community to figure out what we are going to do with it and how this might fit into curricula.

We did find out this morning that we didn’t get Insight Development
Grant, so we don’t have resources to carry on with it beyond what we have been using.

At meetings in Cumberland House there have been a lot of stories being told. These are important, but meetings might not be the best setting for them to be shared. A memory project in the school might be one venue for this to take place – this was suggested to the school and they really like the idea. This way, if someone wanted to tell their story, they could go to the school and do this. If we wanted to run with this idea, it could be a way for the project to continue without us actually being there when the funding runs out. d.
Sarah’s trip to Fort Chipewyan

The focus of this trip was on engagement not research. The community is a little bruised in terms of research, so it was good to stay over the weekend and take part in community activities, rather than fly in and fly out for the meetings only. She had meetings with ACFN and MCFN.

There was hesitation at the start, but after a while specific questions were answered, and by the end of the meeting there was a sense that trust was building and they are excited about the research. There are still some challenges, but we are in dialogue and have received advice on how they want to see the research agreement changed.
2.
Annual Report

The annual report provides a brief overview of what we have done in the past year. We want to know if we are we missing anything, whether the language is right, etc.

Some suggested changes: o provide web links within the report to other documents so people can get more information if they want it o include the first meeting of the Project Development Group o add a couple of sentences on how it started and what the relationship between its partners are, what the budget relationship is so that there is no confusion. We could be clearer in all of our presentations on where our funding comes from. We receive money from Parks and GNWT, but it is a
University project – could have a standard slide to make sure this is clear. o provide captions for photos o include map o have “next steps” section
 For the “next steps” section, how do we want to approach longevity of the project? How can people be involved so that we don’t lose momentum once the funding runs out? We should have those conversations earlier in order to make sure people know we are invested and to increase the chances of getting further funding. The full Partnership Grant requires expanding significantly, so it might not be the best source of funding. We have two more years of funding currently, but could start thinking about an Insight Grant or Insight Development Grant.

This could be on the agenda for Delta Day. Delta Day will be half way through the DDN – how do we want to continue to move forward?
3.
Allocation of phone costs


One of the community coordinators has been incurring costs for making phone calls associated with the project. They will be submitting their phone bill so we can get a sense of how much this will cost on a monthly basis. We want to confirm whether we can use the $2000 allocated for community coordinator travel/other costs for this expense.

Yes – should apply for both coordinators.

It might be cheaper to top-up their plan for Canada-wide long distance. Kiri will follow up with finance to see if this is a possibility.
4.
Delta Day

A draft agenda and budget for Delta Day 2016 has been circulated. Are there any comments or thoughts about whether we are on the right track?

It might be good to have some sort of cultural piece around water. o We could investigate whether there are opportunities to do that with the new Aboriginal Centre opening.

During the first morning, it might be helpful to have time for people from each of the deltas to talk about why their delta is important to them, why they are a part of this project, etc. - “let me introduce you to my delta”.

The youth component will be important. We could have a youth-centered forum, or get youth to explore “what does your delta mean to you” through photography
(has already been done to some extent in Saskatchewan River Delta). o We could also use the first evening to host a public event that is youthfocused – for example, having a youth “photography exhibition” displaying photographs of the deltas. o SRDP youth project book will be finished by that point and could be displayed.

Might be good to dedicate time for a “roll-up” piece where we can talk about common lessons and insights across deltas, where we are going and what the future of the network is going to look like. Friday morning might be a good time for this.

If we will be moving around the campus, setting up paired walks to get people from different backgrounds talking might be helpful. We don’t want to have too

many activities scheduled, but as the transitions to different venues are happening activities to keep people involved can be incorporated.

There are a few people in the deltas that will be very helpful in facilitating a youth-focused event.

Will it be an issue that there is less of a youth-focus in the PAD, relative to the other deltas? o When we conceived of the DDN, the focus on youth was specific to the
Saskatchewan River Delta. Jen has done separate work with youth in Fort
Resolution, so it wasn’t directly affiliated with the DDN. Hopefully we can think about it as “what can we learn” from the other deltas, because there is a lot of interest in all three regions in youth engagement.

Budget o We will do our best to pull together a Connections Grant application for the August 1 st
deadline (there is another round in November). However, we need 50% matching fund. o Is the budget that has been circulated realistic? o Delta Day is a line item in the GNWT budget ($5,000), though this is not set in stone. o There is a $6000 grant available for community engagement on campus that we could also apply to.
5.
Saskatchewan River Delta update from Graham

The Saskatchewan River Delta planning group held another meeting with the
Delta Stewardship Committee, and it went really well. We put forward Terms of
Reference for developing a Delta Stewardship Plan. There were some tensions around the dam relicensing process, which has triggered the duty to consult project. We are hoping that the Stewardship Plan could be something that the community could rally around. The dam operators need to get the license in order before they retrofit the dam, so the duty to consult process has to be completed in six months. This could present some challenges in the future.

The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement and Canadian Geographic were in the
Delta recently, trying to capture the “big picture”. The Boreal Forest Agreement is

trying to develop a protected area, but that is only part of it. The message was that there is a special place that no one knows about, but it is changing very quickly.
While we can’t stop this change, we might be able to slow it down. Increasing the profile of the delta would probably be a good thing.