Research Advisory Group Meeting
September 21st, 2015
Attending: Toddi Steelman, Stuart Macmillan, Graham Strickert, Tim Jardine, Maureen Reed,
Sarah Baines, Kiri Staples
Regrets: Jennifer Fresque-Baxter, Greg Poelzer
Action Items
Task
Responsible
Follow up on MITACS rep on campus
Kiri
Get rough timeline from potential funders
Kiri
Incorporate feedback into Connections Grant
Toddi/Kiri
Look into bringing artists in to the event
Kiri
Meeting Minutes
1. Updates on potential sources of funding
 Have received $2000 from University Conference Fund and $5000 from GIWS
 Have approached a couple of possible funders (e.g. Boreal Forest Agreement,
northern airlines, Walter Duncan Gordon) – would be good to get a sense of a
timeline for their decision, and (in the event that they are willing to provide
funding) approximately how much they might provide. If we have even a rough
idea of that, it will help us put together our budget.
 MITACS might have conference funding available. There is a representative on
campus – we should follow up on who this is.
 Tim’s project with GIWS and NSERC might have some money for workshops
and engagement, but it would have to be specifically for the Saskatchewan River
Delta folks
 RBC Blue Water Project – hasn’t opened funding for 2016 yet
o Could find out when it opened last year to get some sense of a timeline
 TD Canada might have environment stewardship fund – Kiri will look into this
 Stu will look into whether his group has the ability to fund travel for a PAD
representative
2. Format of the event
 Graham sent around a proposed agenda:
o Day one: introductions – sharing of science and stories (two separate
groups), paired walks where people are grouped into shared interests
o Day two: co-develop narratives about change, stories from the first day are
shared with the group (one from each delta), then scientists could
contribute how the scientific method can corroborate those stories 
reverse happens after lunch – scientific findings are discussed, then
community members develop a story related to these findings, followed
by paired walks, and then a primer on developing boundary objects
(allow people to understand something by bringing together different
perspectives into a single object – e.g. maps, animation, etc.)
o Day three: teams of delta citizens, scientists, and artists that allow multiple
ways of knowing to be shared in one object – these are then presented to
the workshop participants so they can ask clarifying questions (where the
presenters respond right away) and coaching questions (presenters go
back to their group and consider question, then respond), and then
presented to the 990 seminar
 Based on previous experience, SSHRC responds well to artists being included
 Sarah was recently in the Peace-Athabasca Delta - people are excited about Delta
Days and immediately started talking about who to send. They would like to
know about what is happening in other deltas in terms of research and how they
could use it for themselves. We should emphasize that part of this process is
helping them develop connections with other deltas so we don’t raise
expectations about what we’re doing. Based on people’s comments, we need to
make sure we have opportunity for people to talk to each other and have the right
ceremonies.
 Curious as to why there are two sessions that separate scientists and community
members?
o Possibly to make sure people are comfortable with each other
o The second day could be more “mixed” – don’t want it to come across as
the scientists not being interested in what the community has to say
 One exercise we have done in the Saskatchewan River Delta that seemed to work
was to ask people what they wanted their delta to look like in 100 years, and then
we turned this into a word cloud. We could ask each delta to do this and then
share as a group.
 We could use the term “boundary object” for the purposes of writing the grant,
but is there a better word we could use?
o Many of these ideas are artistic expression – just calling it art might be the
most clear
3. Participant list
 How many current DDN researchers do we involve? How many non-DDN
participants do we involve? Other participants we are missing?
 We could invite Walter Duncan-Gordon Foundation, Tides Canada, all other
potential funders
 Other researchers: Norm Smith (works in Saskatchewan River Delta), Stephane
McLaughlin, David Schindler
 Need to invite representatives from The Pas as well
 Do we want to invite policy people? Or should we focus on connecting
communities and science?
o For the PAD, it would be interesting to hear what the communities say,
but in terms of participating in generating boundary objects, not sure if
policy makers would benefit from it
o Some of the community people may or may not feel like they can
participate in the way they want to if the government representatives are a
part of those discussions
o Is there a way to reach policy then? One part of exercise for creating
boundary objects could be to shape them in a way that is meaningful to
policy makers.
4. Research outputs
 Boundary objects would be key research outputs – artists would be on hand so
that the community representatives could return with a boundary object
o Need to know budget and copyright issues for hiring artists in preparation
for writing the Grant
 The academic output is a paper about that process
5. Location
 Logistically should be close to where people are staying - there are options for
people to stay close to the University
 Could organize a dinner at Wanuskewin so we don’t have to travel there every
day