The 2026 Big Thinking Summit: Inflection Point introduced a new kind of Federation event. Built through an interdisciplinary open call for proposals, it created a national forum for exploring how humanities and social sciences knowledge can contribute to public life.
Several participants and presenters were invited to engage with the event in a rapporteur capacity. Chosen for the individual perspectives they brought to the Summit; they reflected on the conversations they witnessed unfolding across the program.
Reframing Indigenous Research and Living Treaties in the
Humanities and Social Sciences
By Lorell Ward, Student Recruiter, University of Alberta
The overarching dialogue surrounding the awareness of Treaty 6 while at the Big Thinking Summit showcases disruption to standard academic discourse. The Big Thinking Summit brought together scholars, community members and leaders to deliberate on the future pathways of research. As a rapporteur being tasked to offer a reflective, forward-looking review, my main lens focused on the place, purpose and recognition of research and treaty relationships. The knowledge shared by Jerry and Jo Ann Saddleback and Ron Lameman shifts from a historical exchange to an active understanding of a coexistent ecosystem with one another, whether that is past, present and future. As researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanities and Native Studies, the role is not to archive these hearings but to enact and embody them, which serves a greater purpose of maintaining relationships with one another.
Sessions: Key themes and Insights
Opening in a good way: the Summit began with clear intent in protocol, ceremony and a smudge led by Elders Jerry and Jo Ann Saddleback. This opening allowed the audience to physically see and internalize the importance of treaty relationships. Elder Saddleback offered a key framing: “Culture is the process,” in which she reminded participants that the Creator opened this space specifically for us to engage in ongoing honest dialogue. In institutional academic spaces, Indigenous people and culture are often mischaracterized as a topic or an archive of traditional lore. Saddleback’s words reframed culture as an active methodology, meaning it is a process of dialogue, relationality, and accountability. Culture being the process, research within SSH cannot remain as a measurement of historical events, as it must become a lived, ongoing practice rooted in good intentions and reciprocity.
In Bill Flanagan’s opening address outlining future goals for the Colleges of Social Sciences and Humanities, Native Studies. He defined the Summit’s central theme: an inflection point where direction is not yet fixed. As the world progresses with artificial intelligence, this introduces challenges around institutional accountability and human agency. Flanagan observed that the hardest questions cannot be answered by technology alone, as it demands wisdom, relationality and critical thinking within the humanities and social sciences. In this opening address, it was highlighted that Indigenous scholars and legal traditions are actively reshaping how research is designed and conducted. One of the proposed questions that often came up during this opening was what judgement and knowledge do we need to guide where we go together collectively?
In sessions that addressed the upcoming 150th anniversary of Treaty 6, Dr. Florence Glanfield, Ron Lameman and Knowledge Keepers issued an open invitation to reevaluate the sacred nature of treaty obligations. Hope is anchored in the treaty in and of itself, knowing that our leaders and ancestors understood their roles when entering these sacred agreements. They did not sign a temporary document for the present; they had a deeper vision into the future for the many generations to come. It is now our duty to pick up that ball and throw it forward once again. To truly understand Treaty 6 reverts back to the foundation: the creation story, Kisemanito (the Creator), Treaty 6 is not a transaction that is preserved in the 1876 archives. This is a living governance framework that was created to sustain life, peace and mutual prosperity across generations.
Gaps, Missed Opportunities and Institutional Tensions
While the Big Thinking Summit brought many inspiring perspectives, there are still gaps that remain between academic rhetoric and daily operations within institutions. While the 150th anniversary of Treaty 6 was emphasized, academic institutions still risk treating treaty as an historical symbol or a metaphor for diversity. The specific legal, spiritual duties embedded in Treaty 6 can often be reduced to the generic equity, diversity and inclusion policies or a checkbox to be marked rather than recognizing it as foundational nation-to-nation obligations. Although speakers called for this cross-disciplinary collaboration to address contemporary issues, postsecondary institutions continue to isolate Native Studies, Social Sciences, Law and Humanities into separate silos. Genuine intent and integration require honoring Indigenous research and frameworks as complete knowledge systems rather than additional add-ons. Looking at it as performative inclusion versus sustained structural engagement, the Summit highlights that 30 years of Federation history presents an “expertise on change” and a responsibility to host “tough conversations”. However institutional discussions often shortcut addressing systemic barriers faced by Indigenous researchers, things such as rigid tenure requirements, timelines and systemic underfunding of community-led knowledge.
Based on my observations, here are some strategic considerations for the future of Social Sciences, Humanities and Native Studies to ensure research remains ethically grounded, meaningful and impactful over the next decade. Three areas of focus that come to mind are treaty engagement, Indigenous knowledge and technology/AI Ethics. With treaty engagement, the future pathway is a living governance framework and embodied practice. Indigenous knowledge: Indigenous-led research design and relational governance. Technology: guided by indigenous law, human agency and relational wisdom.
Treaty Engagement: embedding treaty land systems into governance; institutions located on Treaty 6 have to move beyond the Land Acknowledgements. Treaty duties must inform institutional budgets, criteria, research ethics boards, and curriculum development. Technological futures: As technology progresses, Social sciences and humanities must place Indigenous relational ethics at the heart of technology governance. We must ask questions on relational accountability: what do we owe to each other and the rest of the world? This offers ethical grounding that is needed in order to navigate the immense intelligence that is non-human. Sustainable intergenerational knowledge: In alignment with the Cree understanding of treaty as a vision to “throw the ball into the future”, academic research has to prioritize long term goals that will benefit future generations. Research success should be evaluated by the values to the community rather than reducing it to academic measures.
Calls to Action for Researchers
As we navigate this inflection point, the role for researchers across Social Sciences, Humanities, and Native Studies is that we must transition from observers to active stewards of treaty relationships. Throughout the sessions during the Summit, often hearing the saying “catch the ball and throw it forward” I concluded that this means rejecting the notion that treaties belong in the past. When evaluating your research, ask yourself: How does this work honour the intent of Treaty 6 for the next seven generations to come? Move away from extractive approaches that archive community knowledge and actually move towards a community-led research design that honours the idea or principle that culture is the process. Address challenges happening within society by centring Indigenous legal traditions, Kisemanito principles and human judgement. Utilize the privilege within institutions to dismantle systemic barriers, ensuring that indigenous knowledge keepers, elders and scholars hold structural decision making in shaping the future of research.
The 150th anniversary of Treaty 6 is far more than an upcoming milestone on a calendar; this is an open, ongoing invite to all. It calls on us to align research practices with shared relational duties. Ensuring the work today builds a sustainable, respectful, coexistent relationship for generations to come.