IAIP Outreach Targets
Strategic Collaboration & Mentorship Map
Date: April 6, 2026
Context: Indigenous-AI Collaborative Platform — identifying allies at the intersection of APE, computational linguistics, philosophy of AI, and Indigenous technology.
Priority Framework
We rank targets using three criteria:
- Mission Alignment — How closely does their work mirror IAIP's values (relational accountability, Two-Eyed Seeing, ceremonial technology)?
- Accessibility — Are they in academia (vs. industry)? Canadian? Open to interdisciplinary collaboration?
- Strategic Value — What institutional doors, funding, or networks do they open?
Tier 1: IMMEDIATE OUTREACH (Do This Quarter)
1. Jason Edward Lewis — Concordia University, Montreal
Role: University Research Chair in Computational Media; co-director, Abundant Intelligences
Why #1: Lewis leads the largest Indigenous AI research initiative globally ($23M). He co-authored the IP//AI Position Paper. He is Montreal-based, SSHRC-awarded, and his Abundant Intelligences program is the closest institutional match to IAIP's mission.
Action Items:
- Request a meeting to discuss IAIP's alignment with Abundant Intelligences
- Explore co-supervision or research partnership models
- Attend next IFRC public event or seminar
- Review Abundant Intelligences open calls for collaborators
Contact: jason.lewis@concordia.ca · https://jasonlewis.org/ · https://abundant-intelligences.net/
2. Michael Running Wolf — McGill / Mila / FLAIR
Role: PhD candidate (McGill), Co-founder FLAIR at Mila, Founder Indigenous in AI
Nation: Northern Cheyenne
Why #2: Most directly aligned researcher. Indigenous-led, Canadian-based, working on AI + Indigenous language tools at Mila. His FLAIR program builds exactly the kind of culturally-aware AI tools IAIP envisions.
Action Items:
- Reach out via Indigenous in AI or McGill channels
- Propose collaboration on prompt optimization for Indigenous languages
- Discuss data sovereignty protocols for IAIP's framework
- Explore shared presence at Mila Indigenous AI Gathering 2025
Contact: https://indigenousai.io/ · McGill University · Mila FLAIR
3. Caroline Running Wolf — UBC / Buffalo Tongue
Role: PhD candidate (Anthropology, UBC), Co-founder Buffalo Tongue
Why #3: Anthropological + technical bridge; data sovereignty focus; VR/AR applications for cultural immersion; Canadian-based at UBC.
Action Items:
- Connect through Buffalo Tongue or UBC Anthropology
- Discuss VR/AR dimensions of ceremonial technology
- Explore shared framework for Indigenous data governance
Contact: https://indigenousai.io/ · UBC Anthropology
4. Mila — Indigenous AI Programs (Institutional)
Role: Quebec AI Institute — FLAIR, Indigenous Pathfinders, AI Gathering
Why #4: Canada's premier AI lab with dedicated Indigenous programs. Provides institutional infrastructure, funding pathways, and research community.
Action Items:
- Register for Indigenous AI Gathering 2025 (Jul 15–16, Montreal)
- Apply to Indigenous Pathfinders in AI program (with Indspire/CIFAR)
- Explore institutional partnership or affiliation
- Connect with Laurent Charlin (interim scientific director)
Contact: https://mila.quebec/ · Indigenous AI programs page
5. Shannon Vallor — University of Edinburgh
Role: Baillie Gifford Chair, Ethics of Data and AI; Director, Centre for Technomoral Futures
Why #5: Her virtue ethics framework for technology is deeply compatible with Indigenous relational ethics. BRAID programme bridges humanities and AI. The AI Mirror (2024) speaks directly to IAIP's concerns about reclaiming humanity in AI interaction.
Action Items:
- Send introductory email outlining IAIP's framework and resonance with technomoral virtues
- Propose dialogue paper: "Technomoral Virtues Meet Two-Eyed Seeing"
- Explore BRAID programme collaboration mechanisms
Contact: https://edwebprofiles.ed.ac.uk/profile/shannon-vallor · https://www.technomoralfutures.uk/
Tier 2: STRATEGIC OUTREACH (Next 6 Months)
6. Mark Coeckelbergh — University of Vienna
Why: His 2025 book Communicative AI directly addresses philosophy of human-AI communication — the exact philosophical frame IAIP needs. His relational approach to technology ethics maps onto Indigenous relational accountability.
Action: Academic correspondence; propose co-authored paper on relational communication in AI from Indigenous + Western philosophical perspectives.
Contact: https://philtech.univie.ac.at/team/mark-coeckelbergh/
7. Yongchao Zhou — University of Toronto / Vector Institute
Why: Author of the original APE paper. Canadian. Vector Institute connection opens doors to Canadian AI funding ecosystem. His supervisor Jimmy Ba has deep ML connections.
Action: Explore extending APE methodology for culturally-aware prompt optimization; discuss potential collaboration on culturally-grounded prompt evaluation metrics.
Contact: Google Scholar profile · U of T Computer Science
8. Timnit Gebru — DAIR Institute
Why: Community-driven, independent AI ethics model parallels IAIP's structure. Her advocacy for "frugal AI" (small, task-specific models) aligns with Indigenous language needs. DAIR faces funding challenges — mutual support is meaningful.
Action: Solidarity outreach; explore shared advocacy; discuss community-driven research methodologies.
Contact: https://www.dair-institute.org/
9. Emily Bender — University of Washington
Why: Premier bridge between computational linguistics and AI ethics. "Stochastic Parrots" provides critical framing. Work on language technology for endangered languages creates natural bridge to Indigenous concerns.
Action: Academic engagement on linguistic analysis of prompts as cultural-linguistic artefacts; explore her perspectives on Indigenous language technology.
Contact: https://linguistics.washington.edu/people/emily-m-bender
10. Angie Abdilla — Old Ways, New (Australia)
Why: "Country Centred Design" resonates with relational accountability and ceremonial technology. Co-founded IP//AI. Global advocacy amplifies Indigenous perspectives at UN/WEF level.
Action: International partnership; methodology exchange (Country Centred Design ↔ Two-Eyed Seeing); potential joint submission to AI for Cultural Heritage symposium (Paris, 2026).
Contact: https://www.oldwaysnew.com/
Conference Attendance Strategy
Must-Attend (2025–2026)
| Event | When | Where | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indigenous AI Gathering | Jul 15–16, 2025 | Montreal (Mila) | Core community; networking with all Tier 1 targets |
| FAccT 2025 | Jun 23–26, 2025 | Athens | AI ethics community; present IAIP framework |
| AIES 2025 | Oct 20–22, 2025 | Madrid | Philosophy + AI intersection |
Should-Attend (2026)
| Event | When | Where | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACL 2026 | Jul 2–7, 2026 | San Diego | Submit to HCI+NLP workshop; prompt-as-linguistics framing |
| GIDA IDSov & AI Workshop | Feb 25–27, 2026 | Texcoco, Mexico | International Indigenous data sovereignty |
| AIES 2026 | Oct 12–14, 2026 | Malmö | Continued ethics engagement |
| AI for Cultural Heritage | Apr 16–17, 2026 | Paris | Indigenous futures + AI cultural preservation |
Institutional Strategy for Canada
Primary Institutional Targets
- Concordia University (Montreal) — Jason Edward Lewis, Abundant Intelligences, IFRC
- Mila–Quebec AI Institute (Montreal) — FLAIR, Indigenous Pathfinders, Bengio network
- McGill University (Montreal) — Running Wolf, Mila co-supervision model
Secondary Institutional Targets
- UBC (Vancouver) — Caroline Running Wolf, Cognitive Systems program, Indigenous Studies
- University of Toronto / Vector Institute — Yongchao Zhou, APE research, NLP ecosystem
- McMaster University (Hamilton) — Cognitive Science of Language PhD (most interdisciplinary program)
Montreal Advantage
Three of the top four targets are in Montreal (Concordia, Mila, McGill). This concentration creates a unique opportunity: IAIP could establish a Montreal-based research presence connecting all three institutions through existing collaborative infrastructure.
Conversation Starters
When reaching out, frame IAIP through these bridges:
For Indigenous AI researchers:
"We are building an Indigenous-led platform that treats AI interaction as a relational practice rooted in Two-Eyed Seeing. We see prompt engineering not as a technical optimization problem but as a form of ceremonial communication with technological entities."
For philosophy of AI researchers:
"Our project bridges automated prompt engineering and Indigenous epistemology. We're interested in how relational ontology and virtue ethics can inform the design of human-AI communication systems — moving beyond the instrumental view of prompts."
For computational linguistics researchers:
"We're studying prompts as linguistic artefacts with pragmatic, cultural, and ethical dimensions — not just engineering objects. We're particularly interested in how instruction semantics and discourse structure in human-AI interaction vary across knowledge traditions."
For APE/prompt optimization researchers:
"We want to extend automated prompt engineering to account for cultural and relational contexts. How might DSPy/APE frameworks be adapted for languages and epistemologies that don't fit the typical English-language, Western-academic optimization targets?"
Document compiled April 6, 2026 for IAIP strategic outreach planning.