Creative convergence: Exploring biocultural diversity through art

Abstract

Interdisciplinary approaches are necessary for exploring the complex research questions that stem from interdependence in social-ecological systems. For example, the concept of biocultural diversity, which highlights the interactions between human diversity and the diversity of biological systems, bridges multiple knowledge systems and disciplines and can reveal historical, existing, and emergent patterns of variation that are essential to ecosystem dynamics. Identifying biocultural diversity requires a flexible, creative, and collaborative approach to research. We demonstrate how visual art can be used in combination with scientific and social science methods to examine the biocultural landscape of the Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Specifically, we focus on the intersection of Dene cultural diversity and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) intraspecific variation. We developed original illustrations, diagrams, and other visual aids to increase the effectiveness of communication, improve the organization of research results, and promote intellectual creativity. For example, we used scientific visualization and drawings to explain complex genetic data and clarify research priorities. Visual facilitation during meetings helped establish accurate representations of both cultural and biological diversity by externalizing heterogeneity and avoiding standardization. Group mind mapping enhanced collaborators’ ability to visualize connections between Dene concepts, like bets’erı̨hchá “respect” and caribou, and to recognize differences between knowledge systems that challenge translations and reduce the effectiveness of research outcomes. Collaborative visual products, like posters that represented different caribou types, allowed Dene partners to more clearly articulate subtleties within caribou intraspecific variation that are manifest through distinct dialects, place-based relationships, and cultural practices. Our results point to the potential for visual art to be used to improve communication, participation, and knowledge production in interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research collaborations and to enhance the sustainable stewardship and protection of biodiversity.

Full text

Copyright © 2017 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Polfus, J. L., D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha, F. Andrew, L. Andrew, B. G. Merkle, K. Rice, and M. Manseau. 2017. Creative
convergence: exploring biocultural diversity through art. Ecology and Society 22(2):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08711-220204
Research, part of a Special Feature on Reconciling Art and Science for Sustainability
Creative convergence: exploring biocultural diversity through art
Jean L. Polfus 1, Deborah Simmons 2,3, Michael Neyelle 2,4, Walter Bayha 5, Frederick Andrew 2, Leon Andrew 2, Bethann G. Merkle 6,
Keren Rice 7 and Micheline Manseau 1,8
ABSTRACT. Interdisciplinary approaches are necessary for exploring the complex research questions that stem from interdependence
in social-ecological systems. For example, the concept of biocultural diversity, which highlights the interactions between human diversity
and the diversity of biological systems, bridges multiple knowledge systems and disciplines and can reveal historical, existing, and
emergent patterns of variation that are essential to ecosystem dynamics. Identifying biocultural diversity requires a flexible, creative,
and collaborative approach to research. We demonstrate how visual art can be used in combination with scientific and social science
methods to examine the biocultural landscape of the Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Specifically, we focus on the
intersection of Dene cultural diversity and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) intraspecific variation. We developed original illustrations,
diagrams, and other visual aids to increase the effectiveness of communication, improve the organization of research results, and
promote intellectual creativity. For example, we used scientific visualization and drawings to explain complex genetic data and clarify
research priorities. Visual facilitation during meetings helped establish accurate representations of both cultural and biological diversity
by externalizing heterogeneity and avoiding standardization. Group mind mapping enhanced collaborators’ ability to visualize
connections between Dene concepts, like bets'erı̨hchá “respect” and caribou, and to recognize differences between knowledge systems
that challenge translations and reduce the effectiveness of research outcomes. Collaborative visual products, like posters that represented
different caribou types, allowed Dene partners to more clearly articulate subtleties within caribou intraspecific variation that are manifest
through distinct dialects, place-based relationships, and cultural practices. Our results point to the potential for visual art to be used
to improve communication, participation, and knowledge production in interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research collaborations
and to enhance the sustainable stewardship and protection of biodiversity.
Key Words: art; biocultural diversity; biodiversity, bridging knowledge systems; caribou; collaborative research; interdisciplinary; social-
ecological systems, subarctic; traditional knowledge; visual communication; visual facilitation; visual methods
INTRODUCTION
Art is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of
interdisciplinary research. Visual art and design play a significant
role in scientific communication, education, innovation, and
public support for research (Curtis et al. 2012). Likewise, new
scientific technologies continue to provide artists with
contemporary methods of expression (Rieland 2014).
Unfortunately, the entrenched and rigid structure of academic
departments, designed to facilitate specialized research, has led
to an artificial divide between art and the sciences that can limit
creative reasoning, cross-fertilization of concepts, and intellectual
creativity (Loehle 1990). The fields of art and science have not
always been so polarized. Before the advent of photography and
digital technologies for reproducing images, drawing was a
necessary skill, taught as one of several standard academic
subjects (Lerner 2007, Landin 2015). Naturalists, biologists, and
specialists in many other fields have long recognized the
importance of using visual aids to help communicate and decipher
complex concepts (Anker and Nelkin 2004, Curtis et al. 2012).
Recently, increased attention is being given to understanding how
drawing and other data visualization techniques can be used to
portray ideas, organize research results, improve comprehension,
explain complex data, and transform public beliefs (e.g., TED
talks, infographics, visual abstracts; Ainsworth et al. 2011, Hansen
and Machin 2013).
We examine the potential for visual art to aid in interdisciplinary
social-ecological research, which explores the dynamic
relationships between human cultures, biota, and environments.
In the early 1990s, social and natural scientists began to recognize
the importance of identifying linkages between human cultural
diversity (which may manifest, for example, in language and
dialects, specific knowledge of the environment, and unique
cultural practices) and the biological diversity of genes, species,
and ecosystems (Loh and Harmon 2005, Maffi and Woodley
2010). The variety of cultural and biological diversities, known
as biocultural diversity, has the potential to reveal emergent
patterns of variation, expose connections between forms of
diversity, and provide insight into sustainable management and
governance of complex unpredictable social-ecological systems
(Kassam 2009, Pretty 2011, Gavin et al. 2015).
Engaging multiple knowledge systems through cross-cultural
research with indigenous people is essential to sustainable
biocultural research approaches that support equitable ecological
decision making and connect knowledge to effective actions
(Pretty 2011). Language and practice ground indigenous people’s
association with biodiversity and encode place-based traditional
knowledge of plants and animals (Hunn 2006). Culturally
ingrained knowledge of ecosystem processes and dynamics is
constantly renewed through frequent interactions with the
environment (Ingold 2000). Thus, collaborations with indigenous
1Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources
Board), Tulı́t'a, Northwest Territories, Canada, 3Aboriginal Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 4Délı̨nę Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę
(Renewable Resource Council), Délı̨nę, Northwest Territories, Canada, 5Délı̨nę Gotine Government, Délı̨nę, Northwest Territories, Canada,
6Creative Writing Program, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA, 7Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, 8Office of the Chief Ecosystem Scientist, Parks Canada, Gatineau, Québec, Canada

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
research partners have the potential to enable a more balanced
understanding of complex human-ecological connections.
However, communicating across language and knowledge
systems within interdisciplinary collaborations can be
challenging, leading to generalizations that compromise diversity
and threaten the integrity of traditional knowledge (Jacobson and
Stephens 2009). Effective biocultural research requires a diversity
of approaches that can be enhanced by art to advance the interface
between disciplines and knowledge systems.
Many important research tools and methodologies have been
developed to enable cross-cultural collaborations and to bridge
knowledge systems (Berkes 2004, Tengö et al. 2014, Gavin et al.
2015, Rathwell et al. 2015). Among these, art and artistic processes
have the potential to enhance collaborative research processes by
improving the effectiveness of numerous social-ecological fields,
including occupancy mapping (Tobias 2000), complex systems
science (Vervoort et al. 2014), social-environmental health and
resilience (Castleden et al. 2008, Rathwell and Armitage 2016),
and ethnographic communication (Thomsen 2015), among
others. Writing and oral communication have limited capacity to
convey people’s experiences with biodiversity and the complex
patterns of the living world (Hunn 2006). Visual art can be
effective in building dialogue within interdisciplinary teams and
promoting research processes that acknowledge different
knowledge bases and cultural contexts. Arts-based research
attempts to develop methodological pluralism by combining
traditional research methods with the creative and expressive
approaches of the arts (Eisner 2006). Emergent methodologies,
like participatory art, provide avenues for indigenous people to
express important concepts and identify the context and details
that ground their traditional knowledge (Castleden et al. 2008,
Zurba and Berkes 2014). Similarly, art and art making can bridge
knowledge systems and generate new knowledge through
collaboration (Rathwell and Armitage 2016). New visualization
technologies also enable researchers to tackle social-ecological
complexity and to synthesize impacts, trends, patterns, and
correlations (Hinke et al. 2004, Frankel and Reid 2008, Hampton
et al. 2013, Vervoort et al. 2014).
In the Canadian north, biocultural diversity is often considered
to be low because of the constraining effects of harsh ecological
conditions that limit the number of species, human cultures, and
linguistic groups. However, the regional biocultural diversity of
the Arctic and Subarctic is apparent in the distinct practices of
family and cultural groups, extensive dialects within languages,
and subtle environmental variation that influence all life and can
be difficult to quantify (Kassam 2009). Indigenous people’s place-
based knowledge can help reveal intraspecific diversities that are
foundational to functioning systems (Fraser et al. 2006, Kassam
2009). We explore how visual art can be used in combination with
scientific methods to examine the biocultural landscape of the
Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada. Our
objective is to demonstrate how visual art can be used to
synthesize and inform robust descriptions of indigenous cultural
diversity and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) intraspecific variation.
METHODS
Study area and context
The Sahtú region occupies 280,238 km² in central Northwest
Territories, Canada. Dene people have lived in the area for
thousands of years and maintain strong social-cultural
connections to the land and wildlife (Andrews et al. 2012a, b,
McMillan and Parlee 2013). There are currently five communities
in the region; Délı̨nę, Tulít'a, Norman Wells (Tłegóhłı̨), Fort Good
Hope (Rádelı̨ Kǫ́ę́), and Colville Lake (K'áhbamı̨́ Túé).
Although the communities share a common Athapaskan/North
Slavey linguistic history, specific family roots and historic cultural
relationships generate diversity that is evident in three main
dialect groups (Fig. 1): (1) Shúhta (S) “mountain” dialect spoken
in Tulít'a, (2) Sahtú (D) “Bearlake” dialect spoken in Délı̨nę, and
(3) K'áhsho (K) “Hare” and Dela dialects spoken in Fort Good
Hope and Colville Lake. We use the abbreviations S, D, and K
following Dene words to distinguish dialects. For a detailed
description of the region’s biocultural diversity, see Polfus et al.
(2016).
Fig. 1. The Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories, Canada,
currently includes five communities: Délı̨nę, Tulı́t'a, Norman
Wells, Fort Good Hope, and Colville Lake. Dene people have
lived in the region for millennia and share a common
Athapaskan/North Slavey linguistic history. However, cultural
and linguistic variation between communities reflects historical
relationships between people, political agreements, and
economic ties. Historic trail use displayed by community helps
to reveal, in general, the dynamic spatial patterns of the three
main social-linguistic groups, as follows: 1. Tulı́t'a, including
Shúhta Got'ı̨nę, K'áalǫ Got'ı̨nę, and Dǝoga Got'ı̨nę (purple), 2.
Délı̨nę Got'ı̨nę (red), and 3. Fort Good Hope and Colville
Lake, including K'áhsho Got’ı̨nę and Dela Got’ı̨nę (blue;
unpublished data, Dene Nation, Dene mapping project
1900-1980).

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
The political and institutional structures of the Sahtú were
defined by the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim
Agreement (DIAND 1993) that concluded in 1993 and the
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (GC 1998) of 1998.
Management of renewable resources falls under the mandate of
the Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources
Board; SRRB) and the five local Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable
Resources Councils; RRCs). Recent initiatives by the SRRB and
RRCs have sought to reframe approaches relating to natural
resource research by focusing on innovative ways to include
traditional knowledge and Dene laws in research and
management (Polfus et al. 2016).
To facilitate these ambitious community objectives, we developed
a community-collaborative research project (Tondu et al. 2014)
to explore questions about biocultural diversity. An
interdisciplinary approach was essential to conducting effective
applied research, conservation, and management questions that
addressed the interdependent complexity of northern social-
ecological systems (Folke et al. 2007, Liu et al. 2007, Gavin et al.
2015, Rissman and Gillon 2017). Specifically, we were interested
in describing and illuminating connections between caribou
variation and the place-based traditional knowledge that is
expressed in Dene and Métis people’s relationships with caribou.
The research drew heavily on participatory research frameworks
and methodologies (Ferreira and Gendron 2011), as well as on
previous caribou traditional knowledge work carried out by the
SRRB (Délı̨nę First Nation 2005, SENES Consultants Ltd. 2009,
Sahtú Species At Risk Working Group 2013, 2014). A full
description of the project’s methods can be found in Polfus et al.
(2016).
Focus group and advisory group meetings
We held a series of meetings in the Sahtú communities of Norman
Wells, Fort Good Hope, Tulít'a, and Délı̨nę beginning in
December of 2012. Our objectives were to plan the research,
develop research questions and priorities, agree on methods, and
share both scientific and traditional knowledge about caribou
populations in the region. An initial set of focus group meetings
were held in each community (including the addition of Colville
Lake) during April of 2013. The information shared during the
focus group meetings was analyzed and coded (NVivo; QSR
International 2010) to develop categories and themes (see Polfus
et al. 2016 for further details). To best facilitate the collaborative
production of knowledge and coanalysis of traditional
knowledge and caribou genetic data, we invited key individuals
with an interest in the project to participate in what we initially
called an advisory group. Advisory group members quickly
became established as research partners and collaborators, who
informed the methods, ensured that Dene knowledge was
interpreted accurately, and provided additional expertise in
traditional knowledge and Dene language.
The first three-day meeting was held in June 2014 and included
seven participants who helped select additional elders to
participate in a follow-up meeting held in February 2015. All
community participants received honoraria. Following the formal
meetings, several of the research partners continued to work
closely on the project by clarifying details of Dene language
translations, presenting research results in schools and during
public presentations, and reviewing and coauthoring project
manuscripts (Polfus et al. 2016). The interdisciplinary nature of
the research team (whose expertise also spanned knowledge and
language systems) aided our ability to integrate tools and
techniques from multiple disciplines, iteratively refine research
questions, develop innovative methodological solutions, find and
enhance connections with other ongoing research projects, and
respond to community-based wildlife management needs.
Visual facilitation
We used visual aids to explain population genetic methods, depict
the research process and collaborations, and help facilitate the
ability of Dene people to share their own understanding about
caribou with academic research collaborators. During meetings,
we used a mix of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, whiteboard
drawings, flip charts, large sticky notes, word maps, flow charts,
diagrams, geographic maps (Google Earth 7.1.5.1557), and mind
maps (diagrams that organize relationships between information
visually) to represent connections between themes and concepts.
The lead author drew original artwork (both digitally and on
paper) to represent animals, relationships, and ideas (Figs. 2-5).
We also teamed up with a cartoonist who had substantial
experience drawing images related to northern resource
management and indigenous cultures (Urquhart 2000, 2012). The
cartoons inspired our use of bright colors and clear, simple
illustrations to depict methods and research processes. For
example, we used a simple visual flow chart to show the stages of
the research process at every meeting (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Diagram depicting the community-collaborative
research process that was used during focus group meetings,
advisory group meetings, and public presentations. The
illustrations of the community-based scat collection and
knowledge sharing meetings were developed and drawn by
Doug Urquhart for the project and the other two illustrations
were developed over the course of the project by the lead
author.
Prior to the first advisory group meeting, we prepared several
large flip charts of Dene concepts, caribou types, and Dene words.
We also prepared a digital mind map to summarize and organize
themes related to caribou genetics, relationships, behavior,
language, and traditional knowledge, which had been shared
during the first set of focus group meetings. This visual
information was used to prepare the meeting agenda and focus

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
discussion on key research questions and concepts that required
additional validation. To make visual facilitation more adaptive,
the mind map was drawn using the open-source graphic editor
GIMP v2.8 (www.gimp.org) so the lead author could modify it
during the meeting (using a drawing tablet). Modifications were
projected, in real time, on a screen at the front of the room. This
cumulative and iterative approach allowed us to refine initial
categories and concepts to organize research themes with Dene
language provided by participants. Before the second advisory
group meeting, we coalesced the ideas, Dene words, and concepts
from the initial advisory group meeting on large pieces of paper
to further refine research questions. We also digitally created
drawings of the caribou types and printed them as large posters
to be used as participatory tools and to help clarify concepts. In
the second advisory group meeting, Dene elders and other
collaborators annotated the poster illustrations, clarifying
terminology and traditional knowledge of caribou subspecies
diversity (Fig. 5).
RESULTS
The process of using illustrations, diagrams, and other visual aids
allowed research collaborators to expand on key research
questions and underlying Dene concepts related to biocultural
diversity. We discovered early in the research planning process
that our explanations and presentations, specifically of
population genetic methods, benefitted enormously from
complementary drawings that used colors and symbols to
illustrate gene flow, population dynamics, and relationships
between groups of animals (Fig. 3). Scientific visualizations and
drawings helped community members understand and appreciate
new, interesting, and sometimes complicated data, for example,
like genetic inheritance. However, our initial depictions did not
always resonate with audiences that included Sahtú Dene and
Métis elders with variable levels of formal western education and
English language fluency. We worked closely with community
researchers, an expert illustrator (Doug Urquhart), and
interpreters to refine and adapt our approach to incorporate
culturally appropriate symbols, humor, metaphors, and
ecologically correct illustrations (Fig. 3). For example, we avoided
stock imagery of caribou, which we found often only includes
images of large antlered males, and instead, the lead author drew
illustrations to represent male and female animals of different age
classes. These biologically representative illustrations more
effectively conveyed practical information about gene flow to
skilled traditional knowledge holders who had substantial
experience with caribou (Fig. 3).
We found that flip charts and images on the walls in the meeting
space helped make esoteric and theoretical concepts more
tangible. For example, it can be difficult to examine philosophical
ideas, like respect, in a cross-cultural and multilingual setting.
Challenging translations and naive assumptions can derail
dialogue or lead to fundamental misunderstandings. We found
that when exploring definitions of Dene words, it can be just as
important to ask “What does that look like?” as it is to ask “What
does that mean?” In our experience, strong visuals helped ground
and center the discussion. At times, discussions involved sustained
effort, including repeated explanations and work with sticky
notes, flip charts and drawings on the white board, to reach
consensus and understanding. The process of developing and
agreeing to visual symbols that could be used to represent Dene
concepts increased the ability of the research team to focus and
refine ideas. We expand on two examples that outline how images
helped elucidate both cultural and biological diversity and led to
increased clarity of our research questions.
Bets'erı̨hchá “respect”
Dene concepts, understandings, and values are intricately related
to representations of the political, cultural, and economic
dimensions of biodiversity (Nazarea 2006). For example, the
concept of respect is repeatedly brought up by indigenous people
when talking about wildlife and the role of policies related to
wildlife management (Délı̨nę First Nation 2005, Legat 2012).
However, respect can have very different cultural connotations
depending on who is using it and why it is being used. An all-
encompassing interpretation of respect can also be difficult to
identify across cultures because even within cultures definitions
and meanings are context specific and culturally diverse. From a
western academic perspective, respect includes a sense of
reverence or veneration toward a figure deemed to have especially
admirable abilities or qualities. However, respect has other
interpretations when used across age classes, to promote cultural
awareness, during political discourse, in relation to laws, or in the
context of religion. Similarly, the interpretation of respect from
a Dene perspective is contextual.
Fig. 3. Diagram used in PowerPoint presentations and posters
with a visual description of genetic methods. The top two
illustrations were drawn by Doug Urquhart and the caribou
relationship drawing, photos, and overall design were developed
by the lead author.

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
Dene conceptualizations of respect are nonprescriptive and
linked to the very individual objective of “living in a good way.”
Through our discussions, we found it was impossible to separate
the concept of respect from the series of practices that
characterize Dene relationships with animals. The practical
aspects of cultural diversity, such as family-specific behaviors
related to how caribou are hunted, are explicitly linked to how
individuals practice and conceptualize respect for caribou.
Importantly, the distinct environmental conditions (specific
habitats and lakes, rivers, mountains, etc.) experienced uniquely
by different people across the Sahtú region (Fig. 1) have a strong
influence on knowledge about specific caribou habitats and
populations, how and why hunts occur, meat preparation
techniques, and the language that is used to convey traditional
knowledge. Thus, accurate representation of biocultural diversity
requires a nuanced understanding of concepts like respect, which
portray the variation in knowledge that arises from diverse
ecological contexts and avoids standardizing biodiversity
(Kassam 2009).
When Dene and Métis people come together from across the
Sahtú region there are important protocols for how knowledge is
expressed and represented. Knowledge holders defer to
individuals from specific subregions (at different scales as
appropriate) in recognition that each cultural or family group has
their own space and own cultural knowledge.
Walter Bayha explained, respect is
about being Dene, Dene ts'ı̨lı̨, and then having that
relationship with caribou. That’s respect. Ası́ nezǫ
bek'enedı [D] means you take care of them [caribou].
But, I think respect would go a lot further than that. See,
this is the thing with even the word respect, [in Dene
language] it’s not even one word.
As Frederick Andrew added:
Respect means bets'erı̨hchá. When we respect caribou
they know it, and in turn, they are there for us. They are
always there when we need them, and they provide us with
food, clothes, and music.
Another translation of bets'erı̨hchá was expressed as “things that
we hold sacred above all” and is related to Dene responsibility to
care for animals as well as trusting that animals will provide Dene
with the opportunity to survive. Thus, the essence behind the Dene
language that is often translated into English as “respect” is deeply
integrated with ideas of mutual compassion, trust, and empathy
between Dene and caribou.
Dene concepts of respect are directly related to the idea that
caribou are rational and self-aware beings that cannot (and should
not) be controlled by humans. Dene elders in the Sahtú explain
through stories that Dene ɂekwę́ hı̨lé (D), “Dene used to be
caribou at one time.” The stories give agency to animals and
explore the alternative perspectives of nonhuman beings. Dene
ethics governing acceptable human impacts on caribou include
the idea that to treat an animal with respect means to treat them
as equal. Hunting is governed not solely by actions of Dene, but
just as consciously by the decisions made by the caribou (for
further discussion on this topic see Sharp and Sharp 2015). From
a Dene perspective, individual caribou allow themselves to be
killed to ensure Dene survival. In return, Dene must respect
caribou by following locally acceptable practices, many of which
promote tı̨ch'ádı́ı ts'ı́tsıwhı́le (D), “killing animals in the most
humane and efficient way” and informal regulations, norms and
social taboos that govern the treatment of animal remains.
We attempted to elicit distinct knowledge processes and
externalize regional cultural diversity during meetings by working
with visual representations of the language and dialects (Figs. 4,
5). We found that abstract hierarchical concepts and themes (like
key topics) from either or both of the English and Dene
perspectives did not necessarily translate easily, either visually or
linguistically. We spent significant time during our first advisory
group meeting discussing the organization and visual display of
the main themes of the group mind map (Fig. 4). The thematic
topics that emerged, i.e., (1) Ɂeɂah “Dene laws,” (2) types of
caribou, (3) Así godí hé Dene ts'ı̨lı̨ “relationships,” and (4) caribou
behavior, evolved out of substantial dialogue and are significantly
different than what was presented in the original version of the
mind map. The concept of bets'erı̨hchá “respect” was coupled
with central concepts of ɂeɂah, Dene laws. Ɂeɂah relate to the
ethics and cultural practices that necessitate “living in a good
way” and are contextual. A drum was used to symbolize the ɂeɂah
portion of the mind map because caribou hide drums are critically
important to the Dene way of life (Fig. 4).
Frederick Andrew explained:
the drum brings us music, dancing, and hand games and
makes you feel really good inside.
Thus drums are a particularly venerated symbol of respectful
cultural practices. Dene approaches to caribou and decision
making, and the often critical discussions of governance and
policies related to caribou management in the region, also help
explain the emphasis on ɂeɂah within the context of caribou
research. Placing bets'erı̨hchá near ɂeɂah in the mind map
generated discussion about łegháts'eredı (D), “we give to each
other” (symbolized by hands sharing food, Fig. 4) as well as a list
of informal rules for the ethical treatment of animals.
Łeghágots'enetę (D), which represents teaching, learning, and
sharing the set of ethical practices with others, especially youth,
is also tied closely with the concept of respect and was added to
the conceptual model during discussions (symbolized by an image
of a woman and child, Fig. 4).
Coming to consensus on organizational themes was difficult and
we did not have enough time to develop Dene language-driven
topics for “behavior” and “types of caribou” or identify adequate
Dene imagery and symbols for every concept discussed. In fact,
coming up with a Dene concept that encompassed the English
word “relationships” (lower right quadrant of Fig. 4) also elicited
four additional descriptions that differed dialectically and
regionally across the Sahtú. For the purpose of simplicity, we
chose ası́ godı́ hé Dene ts'ı̨lı̨, which translates more literally to “the
being of all living things and people” in the collective sense.
However, this term requires more discussion to adequately
represent the cultural diversity of the concept.
As is the case in most multicultural and interdisciplinary research,
the work could not be rushed. During meetings it was necessary
to set priorities on the focus of discussions when dealing with
complexity. We attempted to balance meeting agendas between

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
Fig. 4. The research mind map diagram was developed to explore concepts and connections between Dene
themes and research questions related to caribou with advisory group participants in June 2014. Where possible,
thematic topics that were used to guide the agenda and focus discussions are represented with Dene concepts
and Dene imagery. The topic areas are clockwise from top left: 1. Ɂeɂah “Dene laws,” 2. Types of caribou, 3. Así
godí hé Dene ts'ı̨lı̨ “relationships,” and 4. Caribou behavior. Images were drawn by the lead author. Shúhta (S)
“mountain” dialect spoken in Tulít'a, Sahtú (D) “Bearlake” dialect spoken in Délı̨nę, and K'áhsho (K) “Hare”
and Dela dialects spoken in Fort Good Hope and Colville Lake. We use the abbreviations S, D, and K following
Dene words to distinguish dialects.
academic research questions and compelling community-driven
research priorities that were important to address at the time.
Time and relationship building (within this project and through
continued traditional knowledge explorations as part of the
SRRB’s broader research agendas) were critical to the success of
our research processes. We anticipate continued work on Dene
biocultural concepts and place-based biodiversity knowledge in
future research initiatives.
Caribou biodiversity
Caribou are phenotypically diverse and are adapted to different
habitats across their distribution. This variation is displayed in
behavioral differences, numerous fur colors and patterns, size
discrepancies, and specific life history traits. The inherent
variation of caribou has made developing taxonomic categories
for the species difficult, and many different iterations of
subspecies, ecotypes, and populations have been proposed both
internationally and within Canada (Flagstad and Røed 2003,
COSEWIC 2011). Thus, collaborating with indigenous people
who have extensive historic relationships with caribou has the
potential to provide representations of caribou that acknowledge
biodiversity and variation within a specific region, using criteria
that may not always be identified by western-science-informed
species taxonomies. An important component of our research
project was to understand the Dene conceptualizations and
language used to describe different types of caribou in the Sahtú
region and synthesize how these types of caribou relate to
population genetic differentiation (Polfus et al. 2016). To achieve

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
this objective, we needed to address the biocultural landscape of
the region and understand how variation is revealed through
distinct place-based relationships and practices that Dene people
have developed over millennia with caribou.
Fig. 5. Images from the advisory group meetings depicting
various visual facilitation techniques: (a) The lead author adds
key ideas to the whiteboard (depictions of hoof shapes) and
flip-chart illustrations of the different types of caribou during
the first advisory group session in June 2014; (b) Details of the
flip-chart illustration for ɂekwę́/ɂedǝ/ɂepę́ (D/K/S) “barren-
ground caribou” and tǫdzı “boreal caribou” including notes
with Dene language in the three main dialects of the Sahtú
region; (c) Details from the draft of the large poster depicting
further explanations and additional information added by
participants of the second advisory group meeting held in
February 2015; and (d) Participants of the second advisory
group meeting work together on the large tǫdzı poster.
Initially, we found it challenging to clearly articulate Dene
traditional knowledge and words specific to different types of
caribou in the region. Dene language definitions of caribou were
complicated by divergence among the three main dialects of the
Sahtú region, the individual variation in caribou appearance (even
within types), and each participant's specific life experiences.
Thus, we found it was essential to create original illustrations to
facilitate the development of robust traditional knowledge
descriptions of caribou variation. Because particular types of
caribou have also been defined by biologists, taxonomists, and
government policies like the Canadian Species at Risk Act, it was
also essential to avoid back-translating English concepts and
names into Dene language. For example, through visual
facilitation during advisory group sessions it became apparent
that using the term gokwı́ (D) "barren-land or tundra" as a
modifier to describe barren-ground caribou (gokwı́ ɂekwę́ (D),
literally "barren-land caribou", which had been used in some
previous research projects) did not accurately reflect how Dene
people used their language to convey meaning about caribou.
Instead, Dene people have dialect-specific names for barren-
ground caribou that vary across the region. The words are used
in context and convey different meaning depending on who is
speaking, what dialect is being used, what questions are being
addressed, where on the land the speaker is located, and the dialect
or background of the audience. Additional supporting
information could be provided if the speaker needed to make it
clear that they were referring to a specific type of caribou or just
speaking of all caribou in general.
Clear visual depictions of caribou helped participants come to
agreement on overlap between caribou words and definitions for
the three main types of caribou within the Sahtú region: 1. tǫdzı
(D,S,K) "boreal caribou", 2. ɂekwę́ (D), ɂedǝ (K), nǫ́dılǝ (S), ɂepę́
(S) "barren-ground caribou" and 3. shúhta ɂepę́ (S) "mountain
caribou" (Polfus et al. 2016). Illustrations also provided a template
for refining physical and behavioral characteristics recognized by
Dene people as being representative of each type of caribou. We
initially developed separate drawings on flip charts for each type
of caribou that had been discussed in previous meetings (Fig. 5a,
b). At the first advisory group meeting, we reviewed differences
in caribou size, shape, color, and behavior and added Dene words
and concepts to the initial draft of the illustrations. Participants
slowly came to a consensus through this visually facilitated
discussion. Participants requested that the illustrations be turned
into posters and used as teaching tools to help share caribou
knowledge with youth. Dene partners realized that community-
specific posters would be required to accurately represent regional
dialects. At the second advisory group meeting, participants were
invited to draw on the updated poster drafts, adding ideas and
changing words or details as necessary (Fig. 5c,d).
Illustrations also helped us explore the question of how hunters
could use caribou tracks to determine which type of caribou was
present in an area. Initial sketches and discussion had resulted in
two different shapes of tracks for ɂekwę́ (D) and tǫdzı. However,
when working closely with knowledgeable elders (who spoke
several dialects) at the second meeting, we found that the word
bekǝ́gǝ (K) or bekégı (D) referred to the space between the hooves
(rather than hoof shape) that holds a gland called ɂéhtse (D; Fig.
5c). The insights into the Dene words for hooves and tracks might
not have been as clear without using drawings to depict the actual
image of a hoof to the entire group. Participants agreed that
identifying the type of caribou that left a track could be best
established based on location, habitat type, group size, and size
of the tracks. The illustrations gave participants the opportunity
to more clearly understand research questions and compare
specialized language about the different caribou types that is used
by expert hunters and elders from different family groups.
Similarly, the illustrations facilitated discussion and description
of additional caribou features. For example, when presented with
a poster of a caribou, elders were quick to add words and
descriptions for the neck area, nose, stomach, antler beams,
warble flies, caribou foods, scat and many other details that had
not been discussed previously but demonstrated detailed
knowledge of complex phenotypic differences among caribou
types.
A visual approach to biocultural research enabled us to develop
clear synergies between Dene traditional knowledge about

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
caribou variation and caribou population genetics. Specifically,
the three main types of caribou articulated through illustration
by Dene people informed and corresponded with caribou genetic
subpopulation structure identified through analysis of
microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA from caribou fecal pellets
(for full explanation see Polfus et al. 2016). Our research vividly
illustrates the detailed knowledge that Dene people have about
differences among caribou and, in doing so, demonstrates that
Dene knowledge is a valid and essential platform for interpreting
scientific (in this case genetic) data (Polfus et al. 2016).
Understanding the more nuanced components of Dene
traditional knowledge and language relating to caribou variation
would have been much more difficult without the use of original
illustrations and the visual participation of Dene collaborators.
After being verified, the caribou posters will be presented to the
communities as educational tools to help with transmission of
language, traditional knowledge, scientific knowledge, and the
promotion of bets'erı̨hchá “respect.”
DISCUSSION
Our research project demonstrates the potential for visual art to
increase communication and exchange of knowledge between
interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research teams while at the
same time illuminating and addressing biocultural diversity.
Connections between Dene cultural diversity and environmental
variation have shaped the ecological dynamics of the Sahtú region
for millennia. Analysis of the multifaceted links between
ecological and cultural diversity can provide insights into unique
ecological histories and identify approaches for sustainable use
of resources into the future (Maffi and Woodley 2010, Polfus et
al. 2016). The first step to identifying and supporting local
diversities is through a flexible and creative approach to research.
Indigenous people’s traditional knowledge describes biological
variation that is interrelated with unique cultural identities and
dialects. Research that generalizes people’s knowledge stands to
lose opportunities to understand how regional heterogeneity, in
both culture and biodiversity, interacts to produce patterns of
biocultural diversity on the landscape (Kassam 2009). Art can
illuminate the wide array of processes that cultures have
developed to understand their environments. Thus, art offers
researchers effective ways to identify, clarify, and convey
biocultural concepts that are elicited from local people through
different social-ecological methods. Biocultural diversity is not
static, and, by acknowledging the dynamic nature of relationships
with the natural world, it is possible to build more robust
representations of social-ecological systems (Kassam 2009). In
our research we used illustrations to identify, understand, and
depict distinct Dene conceptualizations of relationships with
caribou and the caribou biodiversity that is identified through
those relationships. Specifically, we found that visual methods
enhanced communication, participation, and accurate representation
of regional biocultural diversity.
Communication
Visual art is a powerful communication tool (Curtis et al. 2012).
In many cases, the use of visualizations can reveal ideas that are
difficult to comprehend through oral communication alone
(Cornwall and Jewkes 1995, Hunn 2006). This is especially true
when knowledge is represented within different knowledge
systems and languages (Rathwell and Armitage 2016). When
faced with increased levels of knowledge complexity during
meetings, it can be difficult not to retreat to simplistic
explanations, which obscure critical details that are challenging
to express orally (Sibbet 2010). Further, images can be used to
quickly convey information to facilitate group discussions. For
example, when Dene language is interpreted to English on the
spot (as is often the case in multilingual meetings), clarity can be
lost because of constraints on the interpreter’s ability to instantly
transform technical statements between languages. Visuals, like
drawings of caribou, can aid in this type of interpretative context
by increasing the level of detail available to the speakers and the
audience. Phrases like “those caribou are darker” can be vague
and lack the contextual information required for shared
understanding. Instead, multiple illustrations of caribou that
depict the contrast between different shades of fur can instantly
convey information that is cumbersome to express in words,
especially across languages. Furthermore, short verb-based
phrases in Dene language (for example descriptions of specific
hunting techniques) transmit significant information to native
speakers, but lack resolution when translated into English.
Drawing depictions of the hunting techniques on the whiteboard
illuminated technical Dene phrases that were difficult to translate
because they encoded so much meaning (e.g., goecha gots'anele
(S), “to hunt from downwind,” described in Polfus et al. 2016).
Importantly, images can act as shared reference points that help
to externalize private knowledge and enable effective
dissemination of ideas (Ainsworth et al. 2011, Rathwell and
Armitage 2016). The shared experience of perceiving an image
allows for the establishment of a common level of understanding
so that dialogue can advance to deeper and more complex topics.
We found that the images of caribou and Dene concepts in our
meeting space exposed shared knowledge and allowed the
research team to advance more quickly to collaborative
knowledge generation. For example, it is common in cross-
cultural meetings for individuals to take turns providing
statements of their own expert knowledge. This structure often
includes repetitive elements, like generic descriptions of DNA
inheritance or generic descriptions of caribou and respect.
Providing a visual representation of this type of information
allows both the presenter and their audience to demonstrate their
understanding of baseline knowledge. Thus, artistic representations
can produce a more dynamic form of back and forth
communication and lead to deliberate and explicit analyses of
specific research questions like caribou relationships or the diverse
conceptualizations of respect. Visualizations allow interdisciplinary
teams to develop group memory, organize background
knowledge, and make alternative viewpoints accessible; all of
which increase the exchange of information and the clarity of
emergent ideas (Sibbet 2010, Ainsworth et al. 2011).
Art can also be an important tool for communicating research
results to the general public (Curtis et al. 2012). There is growing
recognition for the responsibility of scientists to reach beyond
their disciplines and share their results more broadly (Baron 2010,
Smith et al. 2013). Unfortunately, science communication is
challenged by the pressures of modern academia and funding
agencies that reward publication in high-impact academic
journals (Smith et al. 2013). Collaborative visual research
processes can also provide products and tools for public outreach.
During our meetings, community partners appreciated the chance

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
to work on research outcomes, like the caribou posters, that had
direct and identifiable use in the Sahtú schools. At the same time,
academically situated members of our research team benefitted
from the images for use in conference presentations and public
outreach beyond the Sahtú region (Merkle 2016). Thus, a focus
on visual art during the research process not only contributed to
positive synergies among research priorities; art also helped us
share research findings with those most impacted by potential
research outcomes. Comanagement authorities have used similar
artistic products to help promote conservation and wildlife
management initiatives in the region. For example, the book,
Remember the Promise, used illustrations by our lead author and
Dene language to describe how species are protected through the
Northwest Territories Species at Risk Act (GNWT 2009) and how
species at risk policies sync with important Dene concepts and
practices (Sahtú Species At Risk Working Group 2014). In this
way, visual art can express traditional knowledge in new contexts
that present opportunities to connect with youth and the public
(Islam et al. 2016, Rathwell and Armitage 2016). Additionally,
the book reminds non-Dene policy makers to integrate
indigenous culture when developing legislation and management
strategies.
Participation
Visual facilitation during meetings promotes active listening and
participation because individuals’ contributions are acknowledged
and recorded graphically (Sibbet 2010). In a media landscape that
is saturated with photographs, original illustrations provide a
refreshing and intriguing context. Featuring original artwork
during meetings immediately improves group engagement and
promotes active listening (Valenza and Adkins 2009, Sibbet 2010).
Engagement is essential to interdisciplinary collaborations,
especially those that require input from all group members to
produce output that is representative of cultural diversity. Art is
also a medium that is open for critique from diverse and cross-
cultural audiences, unlike academic manuscripts. For example,
the posters featuring caribou illustrations allowed academic
research partners to present preliminary results for review by Dene
knowledge holders and elders in an accessible format. Asking
participants to write and draw directly on the posters also elicited
active participation in a shared research product (Fig. 5). By
turning communication into a visual practice, rather than verbal,
we provided a unique avenue for multilingual participants to
demonstrate their knowledge.
Participatory art has been widely used to build collaborations
between researchers and indigenous communities and empower
participants to define their own visual representation that
expresses connections between culture, environment, political
systems, and community well-being (Castleden et al. 2008, Zurba
and Berkes 2014, Zurba and Friesen 2014, Rathwell and Armitage
2016). Further, participatory art can encourage collaborative
processes that address important dimensions of social-ecological
systems by bringing together people from different backgrounds
to share in an inclusive dialogue around a piece of art (Zurba and
Friesen 2014, Rathwell and Armitage 2016). In fact, the creative
processes and interactions that are required in participatory art
projects can act as powerful tools for reconciliation and self-
determination (Zurba and Friesen 2014). Although our project’s
initial goal was not to produce collaborative artwork, we were
able to use participatory visualization approaches to effectively
evoke specialized traditional knowledge (e.g., Dene words and
names for different caribou anatomy that were added to the
posters), build deeper understandings of research topics and
themes, and develop visuals useful for communicating social-
ecological knowledge and biodiversity to local and broader
audiences.
Participatory approaches also illuminate diversity within groups
by confirming the legitimacy of multiple voices and points of view
(Rathwell and Armitage 2016). For example, working with the
mind map (Fig. 4) during our advisory group meeting allowed
community research collaborators to expand on important
cultural concepts and use Dene language to describe research
themes. The visual representation of ideas within the mind map
enabled nuanced reflection on the diverse experiences of different
people and allowed cultural diversities to resonate more clearly
among collaborators. Mind maps and other symbolic diagrams
have been shown to enhance a group’s ability to see connections
between topics and find alternate ways to represent ideas,
especially when concepts are bound closely with cultural
ideologies and personal mental models (Sibbet 2010, Davies
2011). Highlighting multidimensional connections within mind
maps during meetings can also allow interdisciplinary research
teams to work together to recognize where important differences
between knowledge systems exist (Winowiecki et al. 2011).
Notably, these differences often occupy conceptual spaces where
translations between languages can break down. Identifying
disparities in how knowledge is organized and presented among
cultures can been seen as an opportunity to: (1) open dialogue,
(2) examine how different knowledge systems visualize the world,
and (3) explore how approaches to problems may vary. In many
cases these differences offer a chance to learn together and
generate new insights through collaboration.
The mind map developed for our research project was used to
both organize traditional knowledge that had been shared in
previous meetings and highlight priorities for further verification
during the first advisory group meeting. Thus, although the mind
map was adapted and modified by the group during the meeting,
the initial work on its organization was done in preparation for
the meeting. Additional research will be able to address this
limitation by initiating the creation of original mind maps during
meetings. This type of participatory method can help academic
researchers assume the role of facilitator and catalyst, rather than
director (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). Inclusive group facilitation
techniques, like mind mapping, have the potential to provide
better creative autonomy over projects and develop an even more
representative picture of shared ideas (Winowiecki et al. 2011,
Zurba and Friesen 2014, Rathwell and Armitage 2016).
Representation
Our research benefitted enormously from the use of customized
illustrations, which we developed to increase clarity and
communication, during all phases of the research process.
Importantly, these illustrations were often modified to represent
updated information or address newly identified areas of
confusion in an adaptive and applied way. Specific illustrations
of caribou, Dene people, behaviors, and concepts, which also
reflected Sahtú Dene and Métis cultural iconography, provided
an important platform for discussions of cultural diversity and
caribou variation. The unique illustrations, which we developed

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
specifically for the project, also allowed academic research
partners to establish credibility with skilled Dene knowledge
holders. For example, depicting accurate caribou morphology
demonstrated that traditional knowledge and teachings that had
been shared previously were heard and recognized. Further, by
carefully choosing culturally relevant imagery, like drums or
caribou, we ensured participants were able to see their own
identities represented during the research process, which helped
build trust and relationships between research partners. By
building our own visual aids and avoiding confusing and
nonspecific images, we were able to successfully engage with
community partners on a deeper level.
Illustrations were essential because they allowed the advisory
group to focus on the symbolic characteristics of each type of
caribou. Although photographs are powerful conduits of
information, in many circumstances, the extra information
represented in a photograph can impede people’s ability to isolate
important characteristics (Monoyios 2011). For example, when
presented with a photograph of a caribou, hunters will often ask
for specific information about the location, time of year, and other
clarifying details that would be important in the context of
hunting. Skilled hunters also recognize that a photograph of a
caribou represents just one individual, and individual caribou are
known to show variation in physical features. On the other hand,
a drawing can convey select information about spatial patterns
and relationships quickly and clearly (Keller 2011, Monoyios
2011). A drawing is more easily seen as a generalized
representation and allows important contrasts between various
kinds of animals to be identified. Illustrations can also represent
multiple ideas in a single image (e.g., overlays, diagrams to
communicate processes, etc.) while at the same time eliminating
distracting or superfluous details (Jennifer 2015).
One important consideration of our research was that almost all
illustrations used in the project were generated by one researcher,
the lead author, with the addition of a few early contributions by
Doug Urquhart. Because symbols are culture specific, the way
that ideas are expressed visually will differ between people,
languages, and knowledge systems. Our reliance on one artist’s
interpretation of the research process and results limits the ability
of our images to represent alternative worldviews. Working with
only one artist ensures a stylistically coherent body of images,
which can also be valuable. Nonetheless, future research
collaborations would benefit from the perspectives of artists with
diverse backgrounds who could develop Dene imagery for specific
topics, like bets'erı̨hchá. Future research should prioritize
indigenous art as a way to express knowledge and improve
collaborative and interdisciplinary social-ecological projects
(Rathwell and Armitage 2016).
Conclusion
Strong visuals were essential to the successful communication and
implementation of our community-collaborative research
through all stages of the research process. Our approach builds
on similar research that suggests that visual methods can improve
communication, especially among knowledge systems and
languages, and that artistic processes should be considered a
fundamental component of interdisciplinary social-ecological
research methodologies and practices (Rathwell and Armitage
2016). In collaborative research, it is essential to draw upon the
expertise of a diversity of people that span knowledge systems,
language expertise, artistic abilities, and familiarity with
specialized tools and techniques, i.e., from ecology, social sciences,
and linguistics, to population genetics, visual design, and art
(Gavin et al. 2015, Knapp et al. 2015, Pittman et al. 2016). Artistic
ability can be fostered as a fundamental cross-cultural skill, and,
much like humor, is a valuable contribution to collaborative teams
that need to connect knowledge systems and develop sustainable
solutions. We propose that investing in collaborations with artists
is an effective way to enhance and improve biocultural or social-
ecological research outcomes.
Though art is a culturally specific act with local representations,
visualizations have the potential to incorporate universal elements
of communication and provide a platform for comprehensive
analysis that can encompass multiple research elements
simultaneously. Interdisciplinary biocultural research must
bridge not only distinct disciplinary barriers but also differing
knowledge systems and languages. We demonstrate the potential
for visual art to aid biocultural research processes and foster
connections and understandings among academic researchers
and indigenous community members. We found that refined
visuals, such as illustrations, expanded the communication
capacity of our diverse collaborative team. Art promotes
creativity and enhances techniques that make it possible to
codevelop research questions and collaboratively analyze
research results.
Art can also be used to emphasize self-governance, indigenous
stewardship, and local authority over biodiversity management
while at the same time asserting cultural distinctiveness (Pretty
2011). For example, a local Dene artist was recently asked to
attend a Délı̨nę Caribou Working group meeting focused on
developing a community-driven caribou management plan. The
artist listened to the ideas that were communicated and produced
images that reflected the community stories shared during the
meeting. The final artwork was used in the resulting plan and
provided community ownership to the project in ways that were
visually compelling and immediately apparent to everyone
involved (Délı̨nę Ɂekwę́ Working Group 2016). Supporting
cultural practices, dialects, and place-based knowledge presents
opportunities for people to define their identity and assert the
uniqueness of their perspective (Kofinas et al. 2000). By
supporting diversity and encouraging creativity, through visual
approaches, it is possible to facilitate a unique convergence of
ideas across knowledge systems that enhances the sustainable
stewardship of biodiversity (Tengö et al. 2014, Gavin et al. 2015).
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/8711
Acknowledgments:
This research project was a collaboration among various individuals
and institutions in the Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories,
including the Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable
Resources Board), the Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable Resources
Councils) and the NWT Department of Environment and Natural

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
Resources (ENR). The participants of the two advisory group
meetings were essential collaborators on this project and shared
extensive knowledge for the purpose of the research. We are indebted
to them: Michael Neyelle, Walter Bayha, Jimmy Dillon, Gordon
Yakeleya, Frederick Andrew, Leon Andrew, Maurice Mendo,
Michel Lafferty, Judy Lafferty, Richard Kochon, Hyacinthe
Kochon, Gabe Kochon, Lucy Jackson, and Camilla Rabisca. We
extend special thanks to Tisha and Benny Doctor for providing
accommodations during our meeting held at Deochah “Bennett
Field” and to Corrine Andrew for cooking for the group. The SRRB
board and staff provided financial, logistical, and administrative
support for this project. Particular thanks are owed to Catarina
Owen, Lori Ann Lennie, Kristen Kodakin, and Joe Hanlon. We
thank Phil Spencer of ENR for help printing the caribou posters
and Kristi Benson for preparing the Dene trails map. Doug Urquhart
passed away in December of 2015. Over the years he developed a
unique style of illustrations and cartoons that he used to depict life
in the north and assist with cross-cultural natural resource
management issues. His humorous and potent portrayals of people
and wildlife have positively contributed to many important projects,
including ours. We thank Doug for his generosity and passion for
art and conservation. He will be greatly missed. The principles and
protocols governing the research were covered by a multiyear
research license from the Aurora Research Institute (15217, 15443,
and 15597), wildlife research licenses from ENR (WL500104,
WL500307), and a University of Manitoba Ethics Protocol
(J2012:202). Funding for this project was provided by SRRB, ENR,
Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program, Environmental Studies
Research Fund, Parks Canada, University of Manitoba, and an
NSERC Strategic Grant held by MM. JLP thanks Claire Polfus
and Morgan Moffitt for reviewing early versions of the manuscript
and the Wilburforce Foundation for support through the
Wilburforce Fellowship in Conservation Science.
LITERATURE CITED
Ainsworth, S., V. Prain, and R. Tytler. 2011. Drawing to learn in
science. Science 333:1096-1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1204153
Andrews, T. D., G. MacKay, L. Andrew, W. Stephenson, A.
Barker, C. Alix, and the Shúhtagot'ine Elders of Tulita. 2012a.
Alpine ice patches and Shúhtagot'ine land use in the Mackenzie
and Selwyn Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic
65:22-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4183
Andrews, T. D., G. MacKay, and L. Andrew. 2012b.
Archaeological investigations of alpine ice patches in the Selwyn
Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic 65:1-21. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4182
Anker, S., and D. Nelkin. 2004. The molecular gaze: art in the
genetic age. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor,
New York, USA.
Baron, N. 2010. Escape from the ivory tower: a guide to making
your science matter. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation.
Conservation Biology 18:621-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x
Castleden, H., T. Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht First Nation. 2008.
Modifying Photovoice for community-based participatory
indigenous research. Social Science and Medicine 66:1393-1405.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC). 2011. Designatable units for caribou (Rangifer
tarandus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory
research? Social Science and Medicine 41:1667-1676. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S
Curtis, D. J., N. Reid, and G. Ballard. 2012. Communicating
ecology through art: what scientists think. Ecology and Society
17(2):3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-04670-170203
Davies, M. 2011. Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument
mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher
Education 62:279-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
Délı̨nę́ First Nation. 2005. Dene ways of respecting the land and
animals. Final report to the Sahtú Renewable Resources Board.
Sahtú Renewable Resources Board, Délı̨nę́, Northwest
Territories, Canada.
Délı̨nę́ Ɂekwę́ Working Group. 2016. Belarewíle Gots'ę́ Ɂekwę́
(Caribou for all time): a Délı̨nę́ Got'ı̨nę plan of action.
Délı̨nę́ Ɂekwę́ Working Group, Délı̨nę́, Northwest Territories,
Canada.
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(DIAND). 1993. Sahtú Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim
agreement. Government of Canada, Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
[online] URL: https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11001000311
47/1100100031164
Eisner, E. 2006. Does arts-based research have a future? Inaugural
lecture for the first European conference on arts-based research
Belfast, Northern Ireland, June 2005. Studies in Art Education
48:9-18.
Ferreira, M. P., and F. Gendron. 2011. Community-based
participatory research with traditional and indigenous
communities of the Americas: historical context and future
directions. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3:153-168.
[online] URL: http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/254
Flagstad, Ø., and K. H. Røed. 2003. Refugial origins of reindeer
(Rangifer tarandus L.) inferred from mitochondrial DNA
sequences. Evolution 57:658-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.0014-3820.2003.tb01557.x
Folke, C., J. Colding, P. Olsson, and T. Hahn. 2007.
Interdependent social-ecological systems. Pages 536-552 in J.
Pretty, A. Ball, T. Benton, J. Guivant, D. Lee, D. Orr, M. Pfeffer,
and H. Ward, editors. Sage handbook on environment and society.
Sage, London, UK.
Frankel, F., and R. Reid. 2008. Big data: distilling meaning from
data. Nature 455:30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/455030a
Fraser, D. J., T. Coon, M. R. Prince, R. Dion, and L. Bernatchez.
2006. Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in
biodiversity conservation: a population level case study. Ecology
and Society 11(2):4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol11/iss2/art4/ http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-01754-110204

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
Gavin, M. C., J. McCarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J. R. Stepp, D.
Peterson, and R. Tang. 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to
conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30:140-145. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005
Government of Canada (GC). 1998. Mackenzie Valley resource
management act. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. [online] URL: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/
M-0.2/
Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT). 2009.
Species at risk (NWT) act. Government of the Northwest
Territories, Species at Risk Secretariat, Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.nwtspeciesatrisk.
ca/content/documents
Hampton, S. E., C. A. Strasser, J. J. Tewksbury, W. K. Gram, A.
E. Budden, A. L. Batcheller, C. S. Duke, and J. H. Porter. 2013.
Big data and the future of ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 11:156-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120103
Hansen, A., and D. Machin. 2013. Researching visual
environmental communication. Environmental Communication
7:151-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.785441
Hinke, J. T., I. C. Kaplan, K. Aydin, G. M. Watters, R. J. Olson,
and J. F. Kitchell. 2004. Visualizing the food-web effects of fishing
for tunas in the Pacific Ocean. Ecology and Society 9(1):10.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art10/
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-00626-090110
Hunn, E. 2006. Meeting of minds: how do we share our
appreciation of traditional environmental knowledge? Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 12:S143-S160. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2006.00277.x
Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays on
livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London, UK. http://dx.
doi.org/10.4324/9780203466025
Islam, D., M. Zurba, A. Rogalski, and F. Berkes. 2016. Engaging
Indigenous youth to revitalize Cree culture through participatory
education. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education :1-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2016.1216833
Jacobson, C., and A. Stephens. 2009. Cross-cultural approaches
to environmental research and management: a response to the
dualisms inherent in western science? Journal of the Royal Society
of New Zealand 39:159-162.
Jennifer, N. 2015. Why science illustration still needs a human
touch. Creators Project, Vice, New York, New York, USA. [online]
URL: http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/why-science-illustration-
still-needs-a-human-touch
Kassam, K.-A. S. 2009. Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways
of knowing: human ecology in the Arctic. University of Calgary
Press, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [online] URL: http://press.
ucalgary.ca/books/9781552382530
Keller, J. 2011. Why sketch? Pages 161-186 in M. R. Canfield,
editor. Field notes on science and nature. Harvard University Press,
Cambrige, Massachusetts, USA.
Knapp, B., R. Bardenet, M. O. Bernabeu, R. Bordas, M. Bruna,
B. Calderhead, J. Cooper, A. G. Fletcher, D. Groen, B. Kuijper,
J. Lewis, G. McInerny, T. Minssen, J. Osborne, V. Paulitschke, J.
Pitt-Francis, J. Todoric, C. A. Yates, D. Gavaghan, and C. M.
Deane. 2015. Ten simple rules for a successful cross-disciplinary
collaboration. PLoS Computational Biology 11:e1004214. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004214
Kofinas, G., G. Osherenko, D. Klein, and B. Forbes. 2000.
Research planning in the face of change: the human role in
reindeer/caribou systems. Polar Research 19:3-21. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3402/polar.v19i1.6525
Landin, J. 2015. Rediscovering the forgotten benefits of drawing.
Scientific American 4 September. [online] URL: http://blogs.
scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/rediscovering-the-forgotten-benefits-
of-drawing/
Legat, A. 2012. Walking the land, feeding the fire: knowledge and
stewardship among the Tɬi̜cho̜ Dene. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Lerner, N. 2007. Drawing to learn science: legacies of Agassiz.
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 37:379-394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/W478-M151-4425-GP03
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran,
A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z.
Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H. Schneider, and W.
W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural
systems. Science 317:1513-1516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1144004
Loehle, C. 1990. A guide to increased creativity in research:
inspiration or perspiration? BioScience 40:123-129. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/1311345
Loh, J., and D. Harmon. 2005. A global index of biocultural
diversity. Ecological Indicators 5:231-241. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.02.005
Maffi, L., and E. Woodley. 2010. Biocultural diversity
conservation: a global sourcebook. Earthscan, New York, New
York, USA.
McMillan, R., and B. Parlee. 2013. Dene hunting organization in
Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories: “ways we help each other
and share what we can.” Arctic 66:435-447. http://dx.doi.
org/10.14430/arctic4330
Merkle, B. G. 2016. Drawn to caribou. American Scientist
104:16-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/2016.118.16
Monoyios, K. 2011. 5 reasons your camera won’t steal my job.
Scientific American 12 July. [online] URL: http://blogs.
scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/httpblogsscientificamericanc
omsymbiartic201107125-reasons-your-camera-wone28099t-steal-
my-job/
Nazarea, V. D. 2006. Local knowledge and memory in
biodiversity conservation. Annual Review of Anthropology
35:317-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123252
Pittman, J., H. Tiessen, and E. Montaña. 2016. The evolution of
interdisciplinarity over 20 years of global change research by the
IAI. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:87-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.004
Polfus, J. L., M. Manseau, D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha,
F. Andrew, L. Andrew, C. F. C. Klütsch, K. Rice, and P. Wilson.
2016. Łeghágots'enetę (learning together): the importance of

Ecology and Society 22(2): 4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art4/
indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological
variation. Ecology and Society 21(2):18. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-08284-210218
Pretty, J. 2011. Interdisciplinary progress in approaches to address
social-ecological and ecocultural systems. Environmental
Conservation 38:127-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000937
QSR International. 2010. NVivo. Version 10. QSR International,
Doncaster, Australia.
Rathwell, K. J., and D. Armitage. 2016. Art and artistic processes
bridge knowledge systems about social-ecological change: an
empirical examination with Inuit artists from Nunavut, Canada.
Ecology and Society 21(2):21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
es-08369-210221
Rathwell, K., D. Armitage, and F. Berkes. 2015. Bridging
knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental
commons: a typology of settings. International Journal of the
Commons 9:851-880. http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/ijc.584
Rieland, R. 2014. 7 ways technology is changing how art is made.
Smithsonian Magazine 27 August. [online] URL: http://www.
smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/7-ways-technology-is-changing-
how-art-is-made-180952472/?no-ist
Rissman, A. R., and S. Gillon. 2017. Where are ecology and
biodiversity in social-ecological systems research? A review of
research methods and applied recommendations. Conservation
Letters 10:86-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12250
Sahtú Species At Risk Working Group. 2013. Report of the Sahtú
species at risk terminology workshop. Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́
Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources Board) and the Species at
Risk Secretariat, GNWT Environment and Natural Resources,
Délı̨nę, Northwest Territories, Canada. [online] URL: http://
www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/sites/default/files/final_report_of_sar_
sahtu_workshop_13-11-01.pdf
Sahtú Species At Risk Working Group. 2014. Kǝdǝ Nıt'ǫ
Benats'adı́ (Remember the promise). Compiled by B. Harnum and
D. Simmons. Sahtú Renewable Resources Board, Tulı́t'a,
Northwest Territories, Canada.
SENES Consultants Ltd. 2009. Ɂekwę Hé Naıdé - living with
caribou: traditional knowledge program 2005-2009 management
and policy implications - preliminary review. Compiled by D.
Simmons. Sahtú Renewable Resources Board, Tulı́t'a, Northwest
Territories, Canada.
Sharp, H. S., and K. Sharp. 2015. Hunting caribou: subsistence
hunting along the northern edge of the boreal forest. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
Sibbet, D. 2010. Visual meetings: how graphics, sticky notes and
idea mapping can transform group productivity. John Wiley and
Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/9781119200086
Smith, B., N. Baron, C. English, H. Galindo, E. Goldman, K.
McLeod, M. Miner, and E. Neeley. 2013. COMPASS: navigating
the rules of scientific engagement. Plos Biology 11:1-5. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001552
Tengö, M., E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M.
Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for
enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base
approach. AMBIO 43:579-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-014-0501-3
Thomsen, D. C. 2015. Seeing is questioning: prompting
sustainability discourses through an evocative visual agenda.
Ecology and Society 20(4):9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-07925-200409
Tobias, T. N. 2000. Chief Kerry’s moose: a guidebook to land use
and occupancy mapping, research design and data collection. Union
of BC Indian Chiefs and Ecotrust Canada, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada. [online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/
nativeamerican/pdf/tek-chief-kerry.pdf
Tondu, J. M. E., A. M. Balasubramaniam, L. Chavarie, N.
Gantner, J. A. Knopp, J. F. Provencher, P. B. Y. Wong, and D.
Simmons. 2014. Working with northern communities to build
collaborative research partnerships: perspectives from early
career researchers. Arctic 67:419-429. [online] URL: http://arctic.
journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/4416
Urquhart, D. 2000. Eyes of the husky: Skookum’s penetrating
insights into the hearts and minds of northerners. Harbour,
Madeira Park, British Columbia, Canada.
Urquhart, D. 2012. The null hypothesis: co-management doesn’t
work. Rangifer 20:103-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/2.32.2.2258
Valenza, C., and J. Adkins. 2009. Understanding visual thinking:
the history and future of graphic facilitation. Interactions
16:38-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1551986.1551994
Vervoort, J. M., D. H. Keuskamp, K. Kok, R. van Lammeren, T.
Stolk, T. (A.) Veldkamp, J. Rekveld, R. Schelfhout, B. Teklenburg,
A. Cavalheiro Borges, S. Jánoškóva, W. Wits, N. Assmann, E.
Abdi Dezfouli, K. Cunningham, B. Nordeman, and H. Rowlands.
2014. A sense of change: media designers and artists
communicating about complexity in social-ecological systems.
Ecology and Society 19(3):10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
es-06613-190310
Winowiecki, L., S. Smukler, K. Shirley, R. Remans, G. Peltier, E.
Lothes, E. King, L. Comita, S. Baptista, and L. Alkema. 2011.
Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustainability:
Science, Practice and Policy 7:74-80. [online] URL: https://sspp.
proquest.com/tools-for-enhancing-interdisciplinary-communication-
f165ae225b7b#.8jinzqprz
Zurba, M., and F. Berkes. 2014. Caring for country through
participatory art: creating a boundary object for communicating
Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment 19:821-836.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051
Zurba, M., and H. A. Friesen. 2014. Finding common ground
through creativity: exploring indigenous, settler and Métis values
and connection to the land. International Journal of Conflict and
Reconciliation 2:1-34. [online] URL: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/270049710_Finding_Common_Ground_throug
h_Creativity_Exploring_Indigenous_settler_and_Metis_values_
and_connection_to_the_land