IAIP Skills Implementation Checklist: Wilson's Paradigm Operationalization

Date: 2026-03-05
Reference: WILSON-PARADIGM-OPERATIONALIZATION-SYNTHESIS-260305.md
Purpose: Quick reference for operationalizing non-extraction guardrails in IAIP skills

Pre-Development: Paradigm Sovereignty Test

• Are we starting from an Indigenous paradigm or adding Indigenous elements to Western framework?

  • If adding to Western framework, this violates Wilson's paradigm sovereignty principle (p. 42)
  • Restart: What Indigenous paradigm governs the skill's direction?

• Which specific nation's protocols are we drawing from?

  • Declare explicitly (avoid pan-Indigenous flattening)
  • Engage with that nation's scholars (not generic "Indigenous perspectives")

• Do we have Indigenous governance authority over the skill?

  • Not advisory. Not consultative. Structural veto power.
  • Can the community withdraw consent? Stop publication? Demand benefit-sharing?

Architecture Phase: Relational Ontology Audit

• Is knowledge structured as relational or extractable objects?

  • Test: Can a "fact" be separated from its context? If yes, structure is extractive.
  • Preserve relational connections in data model (not decontextualized facts)

• Are all 4 Wilson elements present in system design?

  • Ontology: Relationships as reality (not entities)
  • Epistemology: Knowledge is relational/shared (not commodified)
  • Axiology: Relational accountability baked in (not added as feature)
  • Methodology: Ceremony as relational container (not just methods)

• Is ceremony intentional and non-negotiable?

  • Define what "ceremony" means in this digital context
  • Make it structural (opening, decision points, closing)
  • Be honest about what cannot be digital

• Are restricted knowledge domains marked?

  • Implement three-tier classification: Open → Restricted → Sacred/Secret
  • TK Labels as first-class data structures (not metadata)
  • Can system prevent accidental exposure of sacred knowledge?

Governance Phase: Authority & Control

• Is there a community governance body with sovereign authority?

  • Parallel structure to institutional ethics boards (not subordinate to them)
  • Can this body veto research design, data use, publication, AI processing?

• Is consent ongoing and revocable?

  • Not a one-time form; continuous engagement throughout lifecycle
  • Communities can withdraw consent at any time
  • Dissent and refusal are respected without escalation/appeals process

• Are there data ownership/control/access/possession agreements?

  • OCAP® compliance (First Nations Canada) or equivalent
  • Community owns and controls; community has possession
  • Access tiers defined collaboratively

• Is FPIC protocol documented and implemented?

  • Comprehensive information in community language
  • Community deliberation using own governance structures
  • Good-faith negotiation; community can modify or refuse terms

Data/Knowledge Phase: Protection Frameworks

• Are all applicable non-extraction frameworks integrated?

  • OCAP® (First Nations ownership/control)
  • CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority, Responsibility, Ethics)
  • FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed Consent)
  • UNDRIP Articles (especially 31—presumption of protection; 32—self-determination)
  • TK/BC Labels (community-assigned access protocols)
  • Nagoya Protocol (if genetic/botanical knowledge involved)
  • Tribal IRB (if research touches tribal lands/people)

• Is community benefit measurable and direct?

  • Define "benefit" collaboratively (not capacity building vagueness)
  • Verify annually
  • Benefit-sharing is non-negotiable condition, not aspirational

• Can the system enforce TK Labels?

  • Technical controls on access (not just social/relational enforcement)
  • Labels travel with data (roundtrip preservation)
  • Boundary between sacred/secret knowledge is hard

• Are data retention/destruction protocols clear?

  • Can community require deletion after research?
  • Is data held in community-controlled infrastructure or under governance agreement?
  • Who owns data long-term?

Accountability Phase: Relational Responsibility

• Is relational accountability operationalized, not just invoked?

  • Answer: Who specifically must be consulted?
  • Answer: What constitutes adequate reciprocity for this context?
  • Answer: How is accountability verified (not just declared)?

• Are all relations included in accountability scope?

  • Human participants: yes
  • Community: yes
  • Land/environment: explicitly considered?
  • Ancestors/historical accountability: explicitly considered?
  • Future generations: explicitly considered?
  • Cosmic/spiritual relations: acknowledged (even if not operationalized)?

• Is there a dispute resolution process?

  • If community and institution disagree on ethics, who decides?
  • Community authority must prevail (sovereignty principle)
  • Clear escalation path and power structure

• Are impacts on all relations assessed?

  • Environmental impact
  • Temporal impact (generations affected)
  • Spiritual/cosmological impact (even if hard to measure)
  • Community relational impacts

Co-optation Risk Phase: Ongoing Audit

• Have we named the extraction loop risk explicitly?

  • Document Tuck & Yang (2012) co-optation mechanism
  • Acknowledge: prestige increases extraction risk
  • Plan for ongoing audits, not one-time compliance

• Is language staying relational, not becoming bureaucratic?

  • Audit: Are we "capturing" or "co-creating" knowledge?
  • Audit: Is "ceremony" still relational container or become checkbox?
  • Audit: Is "relational accountability" still lived practice or become compliance requirement?

• Are communities seeing direct benefit, or is benefit abstract/delayed?

  • Measure annually
  • If benefit becomes theoretical, system is extracting

• Is institution trying to scale without relationship-building?

  • Scalability without relational grounding = extraction
  • Is community still governing, or has skill been "handed over"?

• Is Indigenous governance remaining structural (not advisory)?

  • Audit: Can community still veto?
  • Audit: Do community members control key decisions or just review proposals?
  • Audit: Is their authority real or performed?

Case Study Implementation Patterns

From Kovach: Relational precedes method → establish relationship before designing research design
From Graveline: Circle distribution of power changes what's possible → design governance structure before methods
From Chilisa: Nation-specific instantiation → Uganda/African/Ubuntu protocols differ from Cree/Canadian
From Ljubicic: Land/embodiment as methodology → ceremony happens in place, not abstracted

Red Flags: Do Not Proceed If...

🚩 Indigenous frameworks presented as "perspectives" bolted onto Western system
🚩 Ceremony invoked but no actual relational accountability protocol
🚩 "Consent" is a one-time form, not ongoing engagement
🚩 Community input is "advisory" not "veto power"
🚩 Benefit is theoretical/future, not measured/direct
🚩 Sacred knowledge domains not explicitly marked/protected
🚩 Non-Indigenous researchers have final say on what counts as ethical
🚩 Language sounds relational but governance is institutional
🚩 System could function without Indigenous participation
🚩 TK Labels treated as metadata instead of first-class architecture

Green Flags: Proceed If...

✅ Design started from Indigenous paradigm, then selected compatible tools
✅ All 4 Wilson elements (Ontology, Epistemology, Axiology, Methodology) are present
✅ Ceremony is structural, not decorative
✅ Community has unilateral veto power over research design, data use, publication
✅ Consent is ongoing, community can withdraw anytime
✅ Sacred/restricted knowledge explicitly marked and technically protected
✅ Benefit is measurable, direct, verified annually
✅ Non-extraction frameworks (OCAP, CARE, FPIC, TK Labels, etc.) are integrated
✅ Relational accountability is operationalized (specific protocols, not just language)
✅ Extraction-loop risk is named and audited regularly

Recommended Reading Order

1. Foundation: Wilson, S. (2008). Research Is Ceremony, Chapters 1-4 (pp. 13-77)
2. Implementation: Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous Methodologies, Chapters on Conversational Method
3. Critical lens: Tuck, E. & Yang, K.W. (2012). "Decolonization is not a metaphor"
4. Frameworks: OCAP® Fact Sheet + CARE Principles + FPIC + UNDRIP Article 31
5. Digital examples: Mukurtu CMS documentation + Ljubicic et al. on Nunami Iliharniq
6. Synthesis: WILSON-PARADIGM-OPERATIONALIZATION-SYNTHESIS-260305.md

When in Doubt

Question: Is this decision prioritizing institution/funder/researcher convenience or relational accountability?
Answer: If convenience wins, you're extracting.

Question: Could this system function without Indigenous community participation?
Answer: If yes, it doesn't operationalize Wilson's paradigm.

Question: Would we explain this design to the community whose knowledge it uses?
Answer: If we wouldn't, we're hiding extraction.

Last Updated: 2026-03-05
Synthesis Source: Deep research with 5 parallel agents
Maintained by: IAIP skills development team