The rise of EDI and Indigenizing institutional initiatives in settler universities like so-called Canada [1] could suggest significant transformations and reduction of colonial violences. Yet, inadequate university policies can cause multiple negative effects: performative approaches, assimilation dynamics, co-optation, added burdens and microaggressions on First Peoples. The few studies that include ‘’Quebec’’ show major flaws in institutional actions towards First Peoples. Only one report focuses on ‘’Quebec’’ but merely states the presence of university institutional actions. Therefore, a critical analysis of university policies addressing First Peoples in ‘’Quebec’’ is necessary. Method: A systematic review of the policies of all universities (18) in ‘’Quebec’’ was achieved. The results were analyzed with the Wholistic Indigenous Framework. Results: No university in ‘’Quebec’’ has an institutional policy addressing First Peoples. Only 28% of universities have an action plan specific to First Peoples, while 56% have Equity, Diversity and Inclusion action plans. Only 1 of those 5 universities with an action plan specific to First Peoples presents the necessary conditions for respectful, responsible, relevant and reciprocal institutional actions. In other words, only 1 out of 18 (6%) universities has adequate institutional actions towards First Peoples. Conclusion: The Wholistic Indigenous Framework suggests that the action plans engage in tokenism with a checklist approach without a real transformation of power. The results reveal major gaps in higher education to address ongoing colonialism.
[1] The terms so-called Canada and “Quebec’’ in quotation marks are used to highlight that they are colonial names and settler-colonial establishments, see for example Alook, A., Eaton, E., Gray-Donald, D., Laforest, J., Lameman, C., & Tucker, B. (2023). The End of this World: Climate Justice in So-called Canada. Between the Lines., or for an explanation https://medium.com/@waterwatchers/whats-up-with-so-called-so-called Canada-ba9e085ec9d2
La montée des initiatives EDI et d’Autochtonisation dans les universités de colonies de peuplement telles que le Canada [1] pourrait suggérer des transformations significatives et une réduction des violences coloniales. Pourtant, des politiques universitaires inadéquates peuvent avoir de multiples effets négatifs : approches performatives, dynamiques d'assimilation, cooptation, fardeaux supplémentaires et microagressions envers les Premiers Peuples. Les quelques études qui incluent le « Québec » montrent des lacunes importantes dans les actions institutionnelles envers les Premiers Peuples. Un seul rapport se concentre sur le « Québec », mais se contente d'indiquer la présence d'actions institutionnelles. Par conséquent, une analyse critique des politiques universitaires concernant les Premiers Peuples au « Québec » est nécessaire. Méthode : Une revue systématique des politiques de toutes les universités (18) du « Québec » a été réalisée. Les résultats ont été analysés à l'aide du Cadre Holistique Autochtone. Résultats : Aucune université du Québec n'a de politique institutionnelle concernant les Premiers Peuples. Seulement 28% des universités ont un plan d'action spécifique aux Premiers Peuples, alors que 56% ont un plan d'action sur l'équité, la diversité et l'inclusion. Seule 1 de ces 5 universités ayant un plan d'action spécifique aux Premiers Peuples présente les conditions nécessaires pour une action respectueuse, responsable, pertinente et réciproque. En d'autres termes, seule 1 université sur 18 (6 %) mène des actions institutionnelles adéquates à l'égard des Premiers Peuples. Conclusion : Le Cadre Hollistique Autochtone suggère que les plans d'action s'engagent dans une approche performative de type « cocher la case » sans réelle transformation du pouvoir.
[1] Les guillements autour de Québec et Canada sont utilisés pour souligner leur caractère colonial, voire par example : Alook, A., Eaton, E., Gray-Donald, D., Laforest, J., Lameman, C., & Tucker, B. (2023). The End of this World: Climate Justice in So-called Canada. Between the Lines.
Download the PDF version to access the complete article, including figures and tables.
The rise of EDI (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) and reconciliation discourses in universities could lead us to believe that significant changes are happening in settler colonial countries like so-called Canada to end social inequalities towards First Peoples (Ahmed, 2007a, 2007b; Hussain, 2023; Munroe, 2021; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019). But is it really the case?
Canadian and international literature reveal numerous problems with universities’ policies addressing First Peoples. Their creation and application often reproduce a colonial approach (Kermoal, 2018; Kidman, 2020; Kuokkanen, 2008, 2011; Terry Wotherspoon & Emily Milne, 2020) and present major flaws (e.g., lack of designated positions and power) (Gunstone, 2008, 2020; KAIROS, 2018; Pidgeon, 2008, 2014, 2016; Pio, Tipuna, Rasheed, & Parker, 2014).
As such, university policies tend to have a performative approach focusing on reconciliation rather than addressing ongoing colonialism (Gaudry & Lorenz, 2018). These approaches focused on inclusion tend to reproduce colonialism and neoliberalism where the main effect is making the institution seem ‘’inclusive’’ (Ahmed, 2020; Lloyd & Wolfe, 2016; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).
Iatrogenic effect of performative and assimilative approaches
These assimilative and performative approaches create iatrogenic effects – by reproducing colonial and racist norms and harming or placing added burdens on First Peoples (Ahmed, 2007a, 2007b; Bishop, 2021; McGuire-Adams, 2021; Yee & Wagner, 2013). For example, increasing the number of Indigenous peoples in university (Tamtik & Guenter, 2019) without raising awareness about colonialism and recognizing Indigenous paradigms and Worldviews risks exposing them to racism, colonialism and microaggressions (Eizadirad & Campbell, 2021; Jones et al., 2023; Locke et al., 2023; McGuire-Adams, 2021; Page, 2018; Settles et al., 2019; Walters et al., 2019; Yahia, 2016). Furthermore, being exposed to racism in universities presenting themselves as ‘’inclusive’’ can be even more violent as you expect better in these environments (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Hunter New England Health Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Strategic Leadership Committee, 2012; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021).
These iatrogenic effects even apply to Indigenous Peoples hired to implement Indigenizing policies, leading to their exclusion, silencing or quitting (1 out of 3) (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Lavallee, 2020; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021; Thunig & Jones, 2021). In addition to facing daily triggers, dismissals and backlash (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Jones et al., 2023; Kerr et al., 2022; Locke et al., 2023; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020), inadequate policies tend to increase the workload on Indigenous peoples, involving invisible labor (supporting students, sitting on Equity committees) (Louie, 2019; McAllister et al., 2019; Mohamed & Beagan, 2019; Pidgeon, 2014; Povey et al., 2022; Thunig & Jones, 2021; Walters et al., 2019). For instance, Indigenous people are expected to represent and respond to all Indigenous-related issues (Staniland et al., 2021; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020), conform to Eurocentric norms, not to challenge policies or decisions by people in power, and do all this without recognition of the systemic barriers they experience (Almeida, 2015; Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Greenwood et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2023; Locke et al., 2023; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Povey et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Walters et al., 2019).
These dynamics are worst when they are the only Indigenous person in the institution, as universities are failing to correct underrepresentation because of settler-colonial recruitment norms, leading to a lack of proper Indigenous leadership (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Brunette-Debassige et al., 2022; Kerr et al., 2022; Locke et al., 2023; Povey et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Walters et al., 2019). This demonstrates how, even when Indigenous policies are enacted and Indigenous Peoples hired, settler colonialism can remain intact if it is not done correctly (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Povey et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020).
In short, institutions tend to tokenize and co-opt First Peoples (Lavallee, 2020; Locke et al., 2023; Naepi et al., 2017; Walters et al., 2019) and documents like action plans promoting ‘’diversity’’ or ‘’inclusivity’’ without doing the work (Ahmed, 2007a, 2016; Jones et al., 2023; Kidman, 2020). This gives an illusion of change without systemic transformation (Henry et al., 2017; Povey et al., 2022) and puts the burden on First peoples - individuals compensating for the system (Steinman & Scoggins, 2020).
Institutional change must seek a deep deconstruction of white/colonial norms to avoid superficial and iatrogenic actions (Kermoal, 2018; Sylvestre et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2021). So, how do we ensure First Peoples are not confined to a box to tick (Kidman, 2020) or an exotic puppet (Lavallee, 2020) within institutions? What do policies need to support real transformative change?
Necessary conditions of the policies
To achieve transformative change, real participation of First Peoples, involving power beyond tokenism, specificity and accountability and the engagement of adequate resources are necessary conditions (Pidgeon, 2016; Settles, Buchanan, & Dotson, 2019). Institution-wide policies, with material resources, authority and power to Indigenous collective sovereignty, with several Indigenous senior leadership are much stronger and can prevent co-optation of Indigenous initiatives (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Hassen et al., 2021; Kermoal & Gareau, 2019; Pete, 2016; Pidgeon, 2008, 2016; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022).
Specificity and accountability
Policies are more likely to be conducive to change if they contain clear, measurable objectives (e.g., hiring 5 people by 2025) and accountability (e.g., designating someone in charge) (Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Hassen et al., 2021; Paradies et al., 2009; Trenerry, Franklin, & Paradies, 2012).
Real participation
The participation of Indigenous peoples, implying power beyond tokenism, is necessary for the development of relevant policy (Kezar & Eckel, 2002b; Pidgeon, 2016; Settles, Buchanan, & Dotson, 2019; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020). Tokenism takes many forms in universities, which stem from being a minority and having little/no power, while being hyper-visibilized to prove the university's "diversity" (Eizadirad & Campbell, 2021; Robinson, 2013; Settles et al., 2019). A common example is inviting an Indigenous person to various committees to ensure an Indigenous presence, without any consideration of their contributions (Lavallee, 2020; Mohamed & Beagan, 2019).
Engagement of resources
To involve First Peoples, positions, including at the highest levels (e.g. Provost, senior executives) must be created (Boldo, 2022; Hassen et al., 2021; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019) and sufficient human and financial resources given to carry out the suggested actions (Hassen et al., 2021; Hussain, 2023; Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Olle, 2018; Pete, 2016; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022; Santa-Ramirez et al., 2020). The most important obstacle, even when Indigenous administrators are hired is the absence of sufficient authority, personnel and budgets to support Indigenization initiatives (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Brunette-Debassige et al., 2022; Pidgeon, 2008, 2016; Povey et al., 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022).
Limit of the literature
Although there is a rising number of studies examining university policies addressing First Peoples in so-called Canada (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Brunette-Debassige et al., 2022; Hussain, 2023; Mullen, 2020; Pidgeon, 2014, 2016; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Povey et al., 2022; Webb & Mashford-Pringle, 2022) few include ‘’Quebec’’ (KAIROS, 2018; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019; Wotherspoon & Milne, 2020). From these, ‘’Quebec’’ stands out as the worst province in their policies addressing First Peoples, especially due to a lack of Indigenous participation and lack of resources (KAIROS, 2018; Wotherspoon & Milne, 2020) or by their lack of policies (Lefevre-Radelli & Dufour, 2016; Lefevre-Radelli & Jérôme, 2017). Only one report focuses on university policies and institutional actions in Quebec (Jean, 2020). However, it simply reports the presence of Indigenizing initiatives, without information about the processes, such as participation and accountability, which are essential to assess their relevance (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Pidgeon, 2016).
Considering the rise of university policies and the risk of iatrogenic effects, a critical analysis of universities’ policies seems necessary to guide us towards transformative change (Iverson, 2007). Furthermore, the reproduction of white supremacy and colonialism through policies often operate in invisible in common-sense ways (Ahmed, 2020; Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Smith et al., 2021), adding to the necessity of a critical analysis. Therefore, this study seeks to (1) document policies addressing First Peoples implemented by universities in “Quebec” and their impact, and (2) analyze if they represent a respectful, relevant, reciprocal and responsible basis to guide the transformation of colonial universities (Pidgeon, 2016).
Method
The objective was to identify policies concerning First Peoples in all universities in “Quebec” (18) and, if applicable, their content and impact. Policies refer to university-wide policies (the term institutional policy will be used to convey that aspect) such as policies for international students which most, if not all, universities have.
Procedure
Keywords were identified for English and French universities that referred to Indigenous identities (“Indigenous”, “First Peoples”, “First Nations”, “Inuit”, ‘’Métis”/ “Autochtone”, “Premiers Peuples”, “Premières nations”, “Métis”, “Inuit”). These keywords were researched with the research toolbar on each of the 18 universities’ websites. The first 50 results were consulted. The results nonspecific to First Peoples were consulted according to the apparition of the keywords (e.g., for a policy on sexism, the keywords were researched in the document and only those parts were read). Documents and pages specific to First Peoples were read entirely, as well as each reference or link in them. The keyword “action plan” was searched at the end to ensure no results were missed. First Peoples are one of the four designated groups in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives (women, disabled people, racialized people and Indigenous peoples) so all EDI content was consulted. To avoid biases due to the quality of the search engines on the universities’ websites, the keywords were also researched in Google, with the name of the university. This also allowed for a double-check that nothing was missed. Data collection was from April 2021 to June 2021. An email was sent to each university in June 2021 presenting the research and asking if they had a policy concerning First Peoples. The emails were addressed to the person responsible for the First Peoples action plan or, in their absence, the EDI action plan. The following 8 universities confirmed the absence of policy concerning First Peoples: UQAT, TELUQ, UQAR, UQAM, University of Sherbrooke, University Laval, School of Superior Technology (ETS), Concordia.
Wholistic Indigenous Framework
The Wholistic Indigenous Framework was used, developed by Pidgeon (2014, 2016), a scholar of Mi’kmaq ancestry working in the “Canadian” context. This framework analyzes institutional actions and responses to Indigenization, from an Indigenous perspective, centering the 4Rs of respect, relevance, reciprocity and responsibility developed by Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991). These principles serve to distinguish between a check-list approach and a real integration and appreciation of First Peoples, as well as Indigenous Knowledges. In other words, do the actions allow real transformation of the institution or do they continue to push the burden of assimilation on First Peoples (Lefevre-Radelli & Jérôme, 2017b)?
The criteria and conditions presented in Table 1 (p.12) (Download the PDF version to access the complete article, including figures and tables.) were based on the integration, in an operational manner, of the two analyses of “Canadian” universities conducted with the Wholistic Indigenous Framework (Pidgeon, 2014, 2016). The embodiment of responsible institutional actions through respect, relevance and reciprocity can be observed through multiple criteria, which have indicators (see Table 1, p.12). Recognizing the necessity to consider the local experiences, the criteria identified, based on English-speaking provinces in so-called Canada, also correspond to criteria identified in universities in ‘’Quebec’’ (Lefevre-Radelli & Jérôme, 2017a; Pidgeon, 2016). Beyond these criteria, the transformation of institutions requires the recognition of our responsibilities towards First Peoples and accountability around those responsibilities (Pidgeon, 2014). Participation, specificity and accountability and the engagement of resources are conditions for any meaningful institutional action that is responsible, respectful, reciprocal and relevant.
The criteria mentioned summarize the content of the action plans (types of actions), which will be analyzed according to the three conditions (Pidgeon, 2014, 2016): 1. Level of participation (number and power) 2. Specificity (what, how, dates, results, objective) and accountability (measurable indicators and monitoring). 3. Resources engaged (human, financial, long term).
1. Level of participation is evaluated by the number of First Peoples involved, and clear indication of their level of power in decision-making. The threshold to go beyond tokenism and into real participation, involving power over decisions and governance is level 6, according to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder (maximum 8), see Figure 1 (Download the PDF version to access the complete article, including figures and tables.). Level 6 reflects a parity in the number of First Peoples and non-Indigenous and some influence, without having the power to ensure their decisions are respected. Level 7 and 8 imply a majority of First Peoples, with delegation of power (7) and total power over the process (8) (Arnstein, 1969). The level of participation is especially important for the creation of the policies but is also considered in the specificity and accountability of the actions (e.g.: specify an Indigenous person will be responsible for Indigenizing the curriculums), as well as the engagement of resources (e.g.: hiring First Peoples).
2. The actions must be specific (what, how, dates, results, objective) to be accountable and indicate who is responsible. For example, “ Explore various strategies to retain Indigenous students as staff, such as internships and short term contracts” (UdeM, 2020, p. 13) is not specific enough to allow accountability, whereas “initiate a cluster hire, directed by the Provost and Vice principal to hire, in the next 3 years, 10 new tenure-track faculty members with lived experiences and expertise in Indigenous Knowledges, Worldviews, methodologies, history, languages, traditions, justice or governance. These positions cannot be concentrated in one faculty” (Provost's task force on Indigenous studies and Indigenous education, 2017, p. 18) is a great example of specificity. It indicates clear goals, measurables outcomes, who is responsible and even anticipates pitfalls.
3. The engagement of resources requires that policies indicate clearly that financial and human resources will be attributed to realize the actions. For example, stating that Indigenous Knowledges and languages will be incorporated, without specifying the hiring and resources to do so would not meet this criterion.
Results
Result 1: Policies addressing First Peoples
None of the 18 universities in ‘’Quebec’’ have an institutional policy addressing First Peoples. Although First Peoples are sometimes included in the designated groups (e.g. sexual violence in universities), there are no policy specific to First Peoples and no policy addresses the specificity of First Peoples (e.g. no mention of colonialism and racism towards First Peoples in policies related to discrimination). One university (Sherbrooke) has a policy for admission of First Peoples in the law bachelors. However, this is restricted to one program in one faculty and not university wide.
Result 2: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) action plans
First Peoples were mostly mentioned in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) action plans or action plans specific to First Peoples. 72% (13 out of 18) of the universities have no action plans specific to First Peoples. 17%% (3/18) have neither EDI nor First Peoples action plans (ENAP, Polytechnique, TELUQ). One of them (Polytechnique) is currently developing an EDI action plan. In short, 56% (10/18) of universities only mention First Peoples in EDI action plans, while another 17% (3/18) have no mention of First Peoples in any institutional policy. While First Peoples are amongst the 4 designated groups of EDI action plans, none of the universities include specific and accountable actions addressing First Peoples. In other words, none of the universities address First Peoples adequately (participation, specificity and accountability and engagement of resources) within their EDI actions plan.
Result 3: Action Plans Specific to First Peoples
Only 5 universities (28%) have action plans specific to First Peoples and were included in the Table 1 (Download the PDF version to access the complete article, including figures and tables.). One (Sherbrooke University) is currently developing an action plan specific to First Peoples. Having a check in the table does not mean that the action is achieved, but only that it was mentioned in the action plan. The ability of this mention to lead to real transformative change (words to action) depends on the respect of the three conditions.
Conditions for meaningful institutional action
Participation
Three universities reach a level of participation beyond tokenism (level 6/8, partnership): Laval University, UQAT and Concordia, the latter presenting the highest level of Indigenous participation (Arnstein, 1969). University of Montréal and McGill are at level 4/8 and 5/8, due to lack of indication of attributing First Peoples positions of power or governance (University of Montréal) or the number of First Peoples (McGill).
University of Montréal’s action plan indicates that First Peoples were only included after an initial diagnostic from the university, followed by parity consultations to identify calls to action. There is no mention of First Peoples being further involved in the later steps or having power. In addition, official instances were designated as responsible for the actions. Yet, the same action plan highlights the absence of First Peoples in those positions. So, the level of participation appears to be at 4, consultation, which stays in the realm of tokenism (below 6) (Arnstein, 1969).
UQAT’s action plan is similar to McGill’s: the list of members is available, but there is no indication of their identity or the composition (parity or majority). The level of participation for the creation of the plan is at least 4/8, but a higher level of participation (6, partnership) was clear for implementation, with designated positions of governance.
University Laval’s action plan was written by a reflection committee, co-presided by the director of Kiuna (an Indigenous college). There was parity in the committee, both at the participants and the governance level, without full delegation of power, which implies a partnership (level 6/8).
Concordia’s action plan was directed, created, and written by the Indigenous Directions Leadership Group, composed of almost exclusively First Peoples. The action plan clearly indicates First Peoples’ participation with power, through the creation of positions and structure of governance (ex: “a permanent, university-wide Indigenous Directions Leadership Council that reports directly to the Provost and includes primarily members of Indigenous communities” (Group, 2019, p. 10)). Therefore, Concordia’s level of participation is at 7/8, with a majority of First Peoples and delegation of power, without full control.
Specificity and Accountability
Out of the 5 universities, only Concordia meets all the criteria of specificity and accountability. Two action plans (University of Montreal, UQAT) are specific only around the actions but lack indicators of accountability (how, measurable outcomes and goals).
University of Montreal specifies deadlines and who is responsible for the actions (what, when, who). However, there are no clear objectives around measurable outcomes that would allow accountability. UQAT’s action plan presents concrete actions, with the anticipated objectives. Co-governance, follow-up, and accountability, involving high levels of participation by First Peoples are often included in the action plan. For example, “add, in all the documents on creating, evaluating and revising programs, questions on how Indigenous realities are considered and included” (p.5). However, the action plan presents no measurable outcomes or indicators of success for the actions, except when the actions are the creation of a position or instance. The dates and who is responsible for the specific actions are not indicated either.
Two action plans (Laval and McGill) are specific only around accountability, meaning they lack specificity in the actions but have a governing structure. Laval University’s action plan lacks specificity around how the objectives will be attained, when and what results are expected. Although the action plan specifies the creation of a governing structure to implement the action plan, it does not meet the criteria for specificity, which impedes accountability (without clear goals, it is impossible to evaluate if they were met).
McGill’s accountability appears in-between partial and high. Most actions do not indicate who is responsible for them, but the call to create an Indigenous Initiatives Office appears to be the central mechanism of accountability and follow-up. Similarly, while some actions do not present measurable outcomes, it might be due to their innovative nature, e.g. “Take concrete steps towards the provision of waivers of tuition and mandatory fees for all Indigenous students enrolled at McGill (medium term)” (p.8).
Resources
Only two universities specify the engagement of resources in their action plans (Concordia and McGill), including the creating of new positions, their budget and support team to ensure the actions can be realized.
Criteria
As mentioned, the conditions are more important to consider than the criteria: where the criteria represent types of actions, the conditions dictate the probability of those words becoming action. Considering only the criteria (the checkmarks) in the table compared to when we consider if the conditions are respected (green) paints quite a different picture (see Table 1, Download the PDF version to access the complete article, including figures and tables.). For example, University of Montréal checks 23/32 of the criteria, the content of the action plans including a lot of favourable actions. However, the absence of fulfilment of the conditions (participation, specificity and accountability and resources) means those actions are less likely to be implemented in a relevant, respectful, reciprocal, and responsible way. This contrast highlights the purpose of the Wholistic Indigenous Framework: analyzing transformative policies beyond check-list approaches.
Types of Actions
The creation of designated positions, which involves the engagement of resources in the long term, appears to be a general flaw of most action plans, as they are the least implemented. For instance, all action plans mention the importance of relationships, especially in research with First Peoples. However, only 2 designate positions to ensure that work is done (Concordia and UQAT), and none mention giving a position of power to a member of the community. Similarly, all universities mention the integration of Indigenous Knowledges in the curriculum and the revitalization of Indigenous languages, but only 2 designate a position for it (Concordia and UQAT).
On the contrary, some actions are readily considered by universities. For instance, all Indigenous action plans seek to increase the recruitment and retention of Indigenous students, hire support agents, and mention multiple forms of support (academic, financial, etc.). All universities mention incorporating Indigenous content or classes concerning Indigenous Peoples in various programs (some mandatory) and mention workshops and training of teachers and students.
Discussion
EDI: The invisibilization of racism and colonialism
None of the universities in “Quebec’’ have policies addressing First Peoples. The vast majority of universities (78%) did not have any institutional action (e.g. action plan) specific to First Peoples (14/18). 56% have an EDI action plan, which mentions First Peoples as part of the 4 designated groups. However, none of these EDI plans have specific and imputable actions towards First Peoples.
This corresponds to Ahmed (2007a, 2007b) critiques of the still-current increase of EDI initiatives in universities in North America, which seem designed to create a positive image more than a real effort to address social inequities. These general terms can reproduce inequalities, as the most oppressed groups will be the least represented, with actions that fail to address their realities and needs, further increasing the gap (Ahmed, 2007a). As suggested, Canadian universities report a notable absence of Indigenous people in leadership or positions of power (Henry et al., 2017), their numbers often being so low they cannot be reported (Smith, 2019). When they are present, they lack power, are underfunded and overworked (Povey et al., 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022).
Accordingly, Indigenous initiatives are often led by a white woman, as they are the most represented EDI group (Brunette-Debassige, 2021), and do not face the same obstacles to access senior roles in academia as Indigenous Peoples (Johnson & Howsam, 2020). Indeed, women’s representation is consistently increasing, remaining the highest amongst the 4 groups (Canada, 2019; Johnson & Howsam, 2020), while First Peoples’ representation is actually decreasing despite their increased availability, suggesting systemic racism and colonialism as a main cause (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2020; UQAM, 2020).
As such, EDI action plans seem inadequate to reduce inequalities concerning First Peoples. This highlights the need for institutional policies specific to First Peoples and revising current policies for their proper consideration throughout (e.g. policies for students that are parents). For now, consideration of First Peoples appears as an afterthought rather than a clear commitment throughout the institution: for non-specific documents most mentions of First Peoples were in the annexes or simply defining them as part of the EDI groups.
Indeed, EDI initiatives can lead to the invisibilization of First Peoples by general terms (Zinga & Styres, 2019) that fail to recognize and confront settler colonialism (McAllister et al., 2019; Muehlmann, 2009; Raffoul et al., 2022). Only two universities mentioned colonialism (Concordia and McGill) in their action plans, meaning that most did not mention colonialism, even in action plans that are supposed to address its impacts. This lack of recognition also means failure to take accountability and reparations for past and ongoing colonial violence, like involvement in residential schools, medical and scientific violences, and theft of land (Daigle, 2019; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Thunig & Jones, 2021).
In addition, not recognizing colonialism as the cause of inequalities constructs Indigenous Peoples as responsible (e.g. underperforming rather than systemically disadvantaged) (Bishop, 2021; Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Hogarth, 2015, 2017; Kidman, 2020; Mullen, 2020; Taylor, 2004; Wotherspoon & Milne, 2020). This creates a deficit-oriented approach, by focusing on gaps and deficiencies. This could have important negative impacts, as this discourse of helping Indigenous peoples resonates with stereotypes of First Peoples as dependent and having too many problems (Morrison et al., 2008; Morrison et al., 2014; Saïas et al., 2020).
In accordance, the great majority (89%, or 16 out of 18) of action plans addressing First peoples —all of them for EDI plans— are deficit-oriented as they: focus on under-representation, aim to increase the presence of “diverse” people and do not recognize colonialism and racism nor center the institution’s role and responsibilities (Wotherspoon & Milne, 2020). Furthermore, none of the universities in “Quebec” have specific policies or strategies against individual or institutional racism.
In consequence, university policies are overwhelmingly failing to address whiteness and white supremacy underlying the on-going settler-colonial power dynamics (Daigle, 2019; Dar, 2019; Kerr et al., 2022; McAllister et al., 2019; Naepi et al., 2017; Parasram, 2019), where even racism is barely recognized (Jones et al., 2023), leading to an absence of policies and accountability for racist and colonial incidents (Locke et al., 2023).
Yet, these First peoples or EDI action plans can be used to deflect criticisms of racism or inaction (Naepi, 2019), leading to a deeper normalization of colonial norms (Daigle, 2019). In other words, inadequate Indigenous policies can further colonialism and harm First Peoples under the disguise of equity (Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021). Through their lack of antiracist language, naming colonialism and mechanisms and policies to denounce racism and colonialism (Hassen et al., 2021; Pete, 2016; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022), universities in ‘’Quebec’’ are failing to address – and take responsibility for – racism and colonialism (Gunstone, 2008, 2020; Moore, 1995; Pidgeon, 2014, 2016).
Conditional inclusion, not decolonization
Results show that actions around “inclusion” or services to facilitate the adaptation of First Peoples (e.g., support agents) to universities are more readily implemented than actions around changing the institution (e.g., indigenize content), which echoes dynamics of assimilation (Ahmed, 2020; Kuokkanen, 2011; Lefevre-Radelli, 2019; Lloyd & Wolfe, 2016; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).
Consequently, current actions by universities in “Quebec” focus on the incorporation of Indigenous peoples and content, rather than question and decolonize the institution. This corresponds to findings that universities in so-called Canada still show resistance to the recognition and centering of Indigenous Worldviews and Knowledges beyond epistemic colonialism (Pio et al., 2014; Raffoul et al., 2022; Wotherspoon & Milne, 2020).
This type of isolated change, without addressing prejudice and racism, is an adjustment (Eckel & Kezar, 2003) which prevents the root causes from being addressed (Henry et al., 2017; Yee & Wagner, 2013). This represents settler colonial conditional inclusion (Stein, 2019) or Indigenization as inclusion (Gaudry & Lorenz, 2018) where no substantial systemic changes are made, and the burden of change is imposed on Indigenous peoples while maintaining the status quo.
Do the universities respect the conditions for transformative change?
Amongst universities in “Quebec”, Concordia’s First People’s action plan contained the most criteria (28/32), followed by McGill (25/32), University of Montreal (23/32), UQAT (20/32) and Laval University (14/32). Yet only Concordia respects the three conditions for respectful, relevant, reciprocal and responsible institutional action. This means that, although universities mention a lot of actions in their documents, these mentions are unlikely to go beyond intentions.
Besides Concordia, a level of participation beyond tokenism, involving majority of First Peoples, power, and governance, is a major flaw of the action plans. As illustrated, lack of these conditions, and lack of sufficient financial and human resources, can create iatrogenic effects on the Indigenous peoples doing the work, through exploitative, tokenistic and marginalizing dynamics (Brunette-Debassige et al., 2022; Locke et al., 2023; Raffoul et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Thunig & Jones, 2021).
Most universities did not meet the condition for specificity and accountability, which corresponds to Pidgeon's (2016) findings that unclear formulation often stands in the way of transformative action. This deficiency in monitoring and transparent reporting from universities corresponds to previous literature where Indigenous peoples have noted the self-congratulating tendencies of universities representing institutional actions positively in their reports (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; McAllister et al., 2019; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021).
These results indicate a major gap between the content of action plans and the participation, specificity, accountability and engagement of resources they require. Therefore, according to the Wholistic Indigenous Framework (Pidgeon, 2014, 2016), institutional actions by Quebec universities, through action plans (and the absence of one specific to First Peoples) appear to reproduce tokenism with a checking-the-box approach, without real transformation of power and colonial dynamics.
Comparison with Canada and international settler-colonial countries
Already highlighted in 2016 (Lefevre-Radelli & Dufour), the gaps between Quebec and other Canadian provinces and between English and French speaking universities persist. English-speaking universities (Concordia and McGill) are overrepresented amongst the universities with an Indigenous action plan (40%), while they only represent 3 out of the 18 universities (17%).
While 85% of Canadian university had a strategic plan including Indigenization and 63% had an Indigenization plan by 2020 (Raffoul et al., 2022), this study shows that Quebec universities are still far behind (respectively 53% and 26%). For example, by 2020, 77% of Canadian universities had hired 1 person for an Indigenous-focused education development position (Raffoul et al., 2022) and gave them annual funds (Brunette-Debassige et al., 2022), while in 2021, only 10% of universities in “Quebec” are planning to hire 1 person.
Despite international and Canadian universities being 5-10 years in advance in decolonizing work and their calls to do better (Jones et al., 2023; McAllister et al., 2019; Naepi et al., 2020), Quebec seems to be reproducing an approach focused on inclusion and failing to enact structural change (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Gaudry & Lorenz, 2018; Raffoul et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).
Comparison with literature
The inadequacies of ‘’Quebec’’ universities correspond to previous literature: Policies and institutional rules are the least implemented actions (Jean, 2020). Despite multiple publications highlighting the need for policies addressing First Peoples, the situation remains unchanged (Jean, 2020; Lefevre-Radelli, 2019; Lefevre-Radelli & Dufour, 2016; Lefevre-Radelli & Jérôme, 2017a).
However, this analysis contradicts the 2019 report, which stated that more than 2/3 (67%) universities consider First Peoples within their strategic planning, including specific actions (Jean, 2020). As that report was conducted with universities, it is possible that they had access to more information. However, their information seems based on what the universities say about themselves: 13 of the universities that replied stated that their strategic planning mentions First Peoples, including specific actions (Jean, 2020, p. 20). This contrast reflects the gap between what universities say about themselves and the extent of their institutional actions, which highlights the purpose of the Wholistic Indigenous Framework (Pidgeon, 2016). Indeed, the lack of such a framework can portray universities in a more positive light, allowing adaptations to seem transformative (Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Pidgeon, 2016).
Limitations
This study, based on action plans and official documents, is incomplete. First, actions and initiatives could be present without being mentioned in action plans. Similarly, the level of participation and resources engaged might be higher than estimated if they were not stated in the action plans. Then again, a condition for good institutional actions is precisely accountability, which requires transparency and specificity (Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Pidgeon, 2016). In this case, lack of clarity and lack of Indigenous policies could be seen as a lack of commitment of the universities towards First Peoples (Daigle, 2019; Eizadirad & Campbell, 2021; Gunstone, 2008).
On the other hand, focusing on policies and institutional initiatives can be dismissive of Indigenous practices that cannot be expressed in operative goals, for example (Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021). This presents the risk of invisibilizing the work and resistance of First Peoples: these policies are built on decades of Indigenous activism (Kerr et al., 2022; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020), the requirement for EDI policies themselves is the result of individuals calling out Canadian universities’ sexism, ableism, racism, and colonialism (Side & Robbins, 2007).
Second, the formulation of the criteria and conditions, although based on Pidgeon’s work, were written by a settler and might not reflect properly the Wholistic Indigenous Framework (Pidgeon, 2014, 2016). By definition, the Framework requires a Wholistic approach, centring the experiences, feelings and well-being of the people addressed by the policies. This analysis might not reflect the lived experiences of First Peoples within their university, which is the key factor.
Accordingly, a university which has not met the criteria and conditions in theory might meet them in reality. For example, UQAT is cited as an example of decolonization and indigenization, despite not meeting the conditions on paper (CAPRES, 2018). Their email response stated that UQAT has implemented multiple practices, services and includes First Peoples in decision-making (Administrative Council, Research Ethics Committee, Programs Council, etc.), which they consider as more appropriate and relevant than establishing policies.
Conclusion
This article shows that despite seemingly increasing recognition of First Peoples, they are still completely absent from institutional policies in universities in Quebec. The invisibilization of First Peoples within policies appears as a reflection of, as well as a mechanism (e.g., lack of Indigenous mentors) that maintains the absence of First Peoples within universities. Out of 18 universities in “Quebec”, only one (6%) has an action plan specific to First Peoples which meets the three conditions of participation, specificity and accountability and engagement of resources (Pidgeon, 2016). Therefore, universities’ actions towards First People in Quebec seem performative and to reproduce colonialism.
A little over half of universities have EDI action plans, which represent a lower level of authority than policies, and, although they theoretically include First Peoples, they are failing to consider them adequately. This concords with previous literature highlighting how universities can express a commitment to diversity while simultaneously working against it (Naepi, 2019; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021). Indeed, they are reproducing inadequate equity-focused institutional actions that do not address structural racism, colonialism, and the underlying White supremacy (Hussain, 2023; Maclachlan, 2017; Parasram, 2019; Raffoul et al., 2022)
Beyond action plans, institutional policies are necessary for Wholistic approaches and strategies throughout the whole university, with sustainable and ongoing resources permitting concerted actions and recourse if the policies are not respected (Axworthy et al., 2016; Louie, 2019; Provost's task force on Indigenous studies and Indigenous education, 2017). Quebec universities are producing non-applicable diversity commitments by failing to resource their implementation and give power to First Peoples (Ahenakew & Naepi, 2015; Ahmed, 2016, 2020; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020). Policies will continue to fail at anything close to decolonization if power stays in the hand of an overwhelmingly majority of white settlers, who control what forms of ‘’diversity’’ or Indigeneity are welcomed or not (Kerr et al., 2022; Locke et al., 2023; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).
Inspiration should be taken from Indigenous-lead institutions such as KIUNA and First Nations University: “As institutions across so-called Canada are working to indigenize and offer supports to Indigenous students, First Nations University has always been an indigenized university” (Bighead, 2019, p.16). Indeed, there is an overwhelming lack of real, bold changes, such as making it possible for First Peoples to study in their languages in higher education (Hussain, 2023), fostering and enacting Indigenous governances (Povey et al., 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022), upholding relationality and accountability through community involvement, including Elders and local Indigenous Protocols (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Cote-Meek, 2020; Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991; Pete, 2016; Pidgeon, 2008; Pitawanakwat & Pedri-Spade, 2022; Raffoul et al., 2022; Steinman & Scoggins, 2020) and ceasing to occupy stolen lands (Daigle, 2019).
This does not mean institutional policies have had no effect or are not worthwhile (Kerr et al., 2022; Povey et al., 2022), but rather that we need to create the conditions to ensure they are not done on the back or at the cost of First Peoples as it has been happening (Brunette-Debassige, 2021; Povey et al., 2022; Steinman & Kovats Sánchez, 2021).
References
Ahenakew, C., & Naepi, S. (2015). The difficult task of turning walls into tables. Sociocultural realities: Exploring new horizons, 181-194.
Ahmed, S. (2007a). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870601143927
Ahmed, S. (2007b). ‘You end up doing the document rather than doing the doing’: Diversity, race equality and the politics of documentation. Ethnic racial studies, 30(4), 590-609.
Ahmed, S. (2016). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2020). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.
Almeida, D. (2015). Standing on my head spitting (Indian Head) nickels: racial battle fatigue as it relates to Native Americans in predominantly White institutions of higher education. Racial battle fatigue in higher education: Exposing the myth of post-racial America, 157-178.
Alook, A., Eaton, E., Gray-Donald, D., Laforest, J., Lameman, C., & Tucker, B. (2023). The End of this World: Climate Justice in So-called Canada. Between the Lines.
Axworthy, L., DeRiviere, L., & Rattray, J. M. (2016). Community learning and university policy: An inner-city university goes back to school. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7(2).
Bishop, M. (2021). A rationale for the urgency of Indigenous education sovereignty: enough’s enough. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(3), 419-432.
Boldo, V. (2022). Environmental Scan on Workshop. Universities' Decolonization/Indigenization/Reconciliation efforts Online.
Brunette-Debassige, C. (2021). The Trickiness of Settler Colonialism: Indigenous Women Administrators’ Experiences of Policy in Canadian Universities. The University of Western Ontario (Canada).
Brunette-Debassige, C., Wakeham, P., Smithers-Graeme, C., Haque, A., & Chitty, S. M. (2022). Mapping Approaches to Decolonizing and Indigenizing the Curriculum at Canadian Universities: Critical Reflections on Current Practices, Challenges, and Possibilities. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 13(3).
Canada, C. d. r. d. (2019). Plans d’action institutionnels en matière d’équité, de diversité et d’inclusion– Guide des pratiques exemplaires.
Cote-Meek, S. (2020). Intergenerational Indigenous Resilience and Navigating Academic Administration. In Critical reflections and politics on advancing women in the academy (pp. 151-165). IGI Global.
Daigle, M. (2019). The spectacle of reconciliation: On (the) unsettling responsibilities to Indigenous peoples in the academy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(4), 703-721.
Dar, S. (2019). The masque of Blackness: Or, performing assimilation in the white academe. Organization, 26(3), 432-446.
Eizadirad, A., & Campbell, A. (2021). Visibilizing our Pain and Wounds as Resistance and Activist Pedagogy to Heal and Hope: Reflections of 2 Racialized Professors. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 15(4), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2021.1937600
Gaudry, A., & Lorenz, D. E. (2018). Decolonization for the masses?: Grappling with Indigenous content requirements in the changing Canadian post-secondary environment. In Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education (pp. 159-174). Routledge.
Greenwood, M., De Leeuw, S., & Fraser, T. N. (2008). When the politics of inclusivity become exploitative: A reflective commentary on Indigenous peoples, indigeneity, and the academy. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(1).
Group, I. D. L. (2019). The Indigenous Directions Action Plan: Concordia’s Path Towards Decolonizing and Indigenizing the University. https://www.concordia.ca/indigenous/action-plan.html
Gunstone, A. (2008). Australian university approaches to Indigenous policy. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37(S1), 103-108.
Hassen, N., Lofters, A., Michael, S., Mall, A., Pinto, A. D., & Rackal, J. (2021). Implementing Anti-Racism Interventions in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2993. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/2993
Henry, F., Dua, E., James, C. E., Kobayashi, A., Li, P., Ramos, H., & Smith, M. S. (2017). The equity myth: Racialization and indigeneity at Canadian universities. UBC Press.
Hogarth, M. (2015). A critical analysis of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education action plan Queensland University of Technology.
Hogarth, M. (2017). The power of words: Bias and assumptions in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education action plan. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 46(1), 44-53.
Hunter New England Health Aboriginal, & Torres Strait Islander Strategic Leadership Committee. (2012). Closing the gap in a regional health service in NSW: A multi-strategic approach to addressing individual and institutional racism. New South Wales public health bulletin, 23(3-4), 63-67.
Hussain, M. M. (2023). The Policy Efforts to Address Racism and Discrimination in Higher Education Institutions: The Case of Canada. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal.
Johnson, G. F., & Howsam, R. (2020). Whiteness, Power and the Politics of Demographics in the Governance of the Canadian Academy. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 53(3), 676-694.
Jones, M., Stanton, P., & Rose, M. (2023). Why isn’t my professor Aboriginal? Australian Journal of Management, 03128962231160395.
KAIROS. (2018). Revised report card: Provincial and territorial curriculum on Indigenous Peoples (Winds of Change: 2018 report card, Issue.
Kermoal, N., & Gareau, P. (2019). Réflexions sur l’autochtonisation des universités, un cours à la fois. Cahiers franco-canadiens de l'Ouest, 31(1), 71-88.
Kerr, J., Malcolm, M., & Swan, K. (2022). Navigating Colonial Space: A Case Study of an Indigenous Student-Led Decolonial Movement in Canadian Higher Education.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 295-328.
Kidman, J. (2020). Whither decolonisation? Indigenous scholars and the problem of inclusion in the neoliberal university. Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 247-262.
Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The four R's—Respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 1-15.
Kuokkanen, R. (2011). Reshaping the university: Responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. ubc Press.
Lavallee, L. F. (2020). Resisting exotic puppetry: Experiences of Indigenous women leadership in the academy. In Critical reflections and politics on advancing women in the academy (pp. 21-32). IGI Global.
Lefevre-Radelli, L. (2019). L'expérience des étudiants autochtones à l'université: racisme systémique, stratégies d'adaptation et espoir de changement social Nantes.
Lefevre-Radelli, L., & Dufour, E. (2016). Entre revendications nationales et expériences locales. La reconnaissance des Premières Nations dans les universités de Montréal (Québec). Cahiers de la recherche sur l’éducation et les savoirs(15), 169-192.
Lefevre-Radelli, L., & Jérôme, L. (2017). Expériences, politiques et pratiques d'intégration des étudiant. es autochtones à l'université: le cas de l'UQAM. Cercle des Premières Nations de l'UQAM.
Lloyd, D., & Wolfe, P. (2016). Settler colonial logics and the neoliberal regime. In (Vol. 6, pp. 109-118): Taylor & Francis.
Locke, M., Trudgett, M., & Page, S. (2023). Australian Indigenous early career researchers: unicorns, cash cows and performing monkeys. Race Ethnicity and Education, 26(1), 1-17.
Louie, D. (2019). Aligning universities’ recruitment of Indigenous academics with the tools used to evaluate scholarly performance and grant tenure and promotion. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 42(3), 791-815.
Maclachlan, Q. (2017). Are we doing anti-racism?: A critical look at the Ontario Ministry of Education’s anti-racism policy and social studies curriculum. In New Framings on Anti-Racism and Resistance (pp. 57-68). Brill.
McAllister, T., Kidman, J., Rowley, O., & Theodore, R. (2019). Why isn’t my professor Mäori. Mai Journal, 8(2), 235-249.
McGuire-Adams, T. (2021). Settler allies are made, not self-proclaimed: unsettling conversations for non-indigenous researchers and educators involved in indigenous health. Health Education Journal, 80(7), 761-772.
Mohamed, T., & Beagan, B. L. (2019). ‘Strange faces’ in the academy: experiences of racialized and Indigenous faculty in Canadian universities. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(3), 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1511532
Morrison, M. A., Morrison, T. G., Harriman, R. L., & Jewell, L. M. (2008). Old-fashioned and modern prejudice toward Aboriginals in Canada.
Morrison, T., Morrison, M., & Borsa, T. (2014). A legacy of derogation: Prejudice toward Aboriginal persons in Canada. Psychology, 2014.
Muehlmann, S. (2009). How do real Indians fish? Neoliberal multiculturalism and contested indigeneities in the Colorado Delta. American Anthropologist, 111(4), 468-479.
Mullen, C. (2020). De/colonization: Perspectives on/by Indigenous populations in global Canadian contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(6), 671-690.
Munroe, I. (2021). Where truth and reconciliation stand at Canadian universities. University Affairs.
Naepi, S. (2019). Why isn’t my professor Pasifika. Mai Journal, 8(2), 219-234.
Naepi, S., McAllister, T. G., Thomsen, P., Leenen-Young, M., Walker, L. A., McAllister, A. L., Theodore, R., Kidman, J., & Suaaliia, T. (2020). The Pakaru ‘pipeline’: Māori and Pasifika pathways within the academy.
Naepi, S., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Andreotti, V. d. O. (2017). A cartography of higher education: Attempts at inclusion and insights from Pasifika scholarship in Aotearoa New Zealand. Global teaching: Southern perspectives on teachers working with diversity, 81-99.
Olle, C. D. (2018). Breaking institutional habits: A critical paradigm for social change agents in psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(2), 190-212.
Page, K. (2018). The “Problem” Woman of Colour in the Workplace. Retrieved 23-02 from https://coco-net.org/problem-woman-colour-nonprofit-organizations/
Parasram, A. (2019). Pathological White Fragility and the Canadian Nation: Pathological white fragility and the Canadian nation. Studies in Political Economy, 100(2), 194-207.
Pete, S. (2016). 100 Ways: Indigenizing & decolonizing academic programs. aboriginal policy studies, 6(1).
Pidgeon, M. (2008). It takes more than good intentions: Institutional accountability and responsibility to Indigenous higher education. University of British Columbia.
Pidgeon, M. (2014). Moving beyond good intentions: Indigenizing higher education in British Columbia universities through institutional responsibility and accountability. Journal of American Indian Education, 7-28.
Pidgeon, M. (2016). More than a checklist: Meaningful Indigenous inclusion in higher education. Social Inclusion, 4(1), 77-91.
Pio, E., Tipuna, K., Rasheed, A., & Parker, L. (2014). Te Wero—the challenge: reimagining universities from an indigenous world view. Higher Education Academy, 67(5), 675-690.
Pitawanakwat, B. T., & Pedri-Spade, C. (2022). Indigenization in universities and its role in continuing settler-colonialism. Janus Unbound: Journal of Critical Studies, 1(2), 12-35.
Povey, R., Trudgett, M., Page, S., & Coates, S. K. (2022). Where we’re going, not where we’ve been: Indigenous leadership in Canadian higher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(1), 38-54.
Provost's task force on Indigenous studies and Indigenous education. (2017). Final report.
Raffoul, J., Ward, J., Calvez, S., Kartolo, A., Haque, A., Holmes, T., Attas, R., Kechego, J., Kustra, E., & Mooney, J. (2022). Institutional structures and individual stories: Experiences from the front lines of Indigenous educational development in higher education. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 18(1), 163-172.
Saïas, T., Perray, M., Devaud, K., & Nouchi, J. (2020). Social Representations of Indigenous People within a sample of non-Indigenous Young Adults in Quebec, Canada. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 11(3).
Santa-Ramirez, S., Wells, T., Sandoval, J., & Koro, M. (2020). Working through the experiences of first-generation students of color, university mission, intersectionality, and post-subjectivity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1-16.
Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized:(In) visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 62-74.
Side, K., & Robbins, W. (2007). Institutionalizing inequalities in Canadian universities: The Canada research chairs program. NWSA Journal, 19(3), 163-181.
Smith, A., Funaki, H., & MacDonald, L. (2021). Living, breathing settler-colonialism: the reification of settler norms in a common university space. Higher Education Research Development, 40(1), 132-145.
Smith, M. A. (2019). The Diversity Gap in 2019: Canadian Universities. ((Infographic series on U15 Presidents’ Leadership Teams or Cabinets, U15 Deans, U15 Leadership Pipeline, Equity Diversity Intersectionality Decoloniality.), Issue. https://uofaawa.wordpress.com/awadiversity-gap-campaign/
Staniland, N. A., Harris, C., & Pringle, J. K. (2021). Indigenous and boundaryless careers: Cultural boundaries in the careers of Māori academics. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(16), 3527-3546.
Stein, S. (2019). Navigating different theories of change for higher education in volatile times. Educational Studies, 55(6), 667-688.
Steinman, E., & Kovats Sánchez, G. (2021). Magnifying and healing colonial trauma in higher education: Persistent settler colonial dynamics at the Indigenizing university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.
Steinman, E., & Scoggins, S. (2020). Cautionary stories of university indigenization: Institutional dynamics, accountability struggles, and resilient settler colonial power. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 44(1), 73-96.
Tamtik, M., & Guenter, M. (2019). Policy analysis of equity, diversity and inclusion strategies in Canadian universities–How far have we come? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(3), 41-56.
Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433-451.
Thunig, A., & Jones, T. (2021). ‘Don’t make me play house-n*** er’: Indigenous academic women treated as ‘black performer’within higher education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48, 397-417.
UdeM. (2020). Place aux Premiers Peuples : Plan d'action 2020-2023. https://www.umontreal.ca/public/www/images/autochtones/UdeM_PlanDAction_PremiersPeuples_final.pdf
Walters, K. L., Maliszewski Lukszo, C., Evans-Campbell, T., Burciaga Valdez, R., & Zambrana, R. E. (2019). ‘Before they kill my spirit entirely’: insights into the lived experiences of American Indian Alaska Native faculty at research universities. Race Ethnicity Education, 22(5), 610-633.
Webb, D., & Mashford-Pringle, A. (2022). Incorporating Indigenous Content Into K-12 Curriculum: Supports for Teachers in Provincial and Territorial Policy and Post-Secondary Education Spaces [Article]. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy(198), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.7202/1086427ar
Wotherspoon, T., & Milne, E. (2020). What Do Indigenous Education Policy Frameworks Reveal about Commitments to Reconciliation in Canadian School Systems? The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 11(1), 1-29.
Yahia, L. (2016). Voices of racialized and Indigenous leaders in Canadian universities Thompson Rivers University].
Yee, J. Y., & Wagner, A. E. (2013). Is anti-oppression teaching in Canadian social work classrooms a form of neo-liberalism? Social Work Education, 32(3), 331-348.
Kai Handfield and Thomas Delawarde-Saïas
Kai Handfield, is a PhD student in Community psychology at University of Quebec in Montreal. In recognition of their position as a white settler (descendant of Irish and English settlers in the 1800s), living on the stolen lands of Tiohtiá:ke, they seek to offer their research skills in support of anticolonial and environmental struggles. They are primarily interested in studying how to foster social change, and to use their position of power to raise awareness about privilege and white supremacy.
Thomas Delawarde-Saïas, is a community psychology teacher at University of Quebec in Montreal, since 2015. He is the research director of the Epione research team, which focuses on understanding and reducing social inequalities, through various themes, such as public services, systemic racism and gender-based violence. Epione also offer evaluation services for public services, the community sector and various institutions seeking to reflect and improve their services.
Download the PDF version to access the complete article.
Keywords: Policies, Action plans, Institutional change, Universities, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, Indigenization, Decolonization
Based on a work at www.gjcpp.org. 
.png)
Printer friendly version