ResearchPod Summary
Historically, research involving Indigenous peoples has been defined by extractive, colonial practices that marginalized Indigenous knowledge systems as anecdotal or unscientific. The author argues that business scholarship is overdue for a paradigm shift. By adopting the principle of Two-Eyed Seeing, introduced by Mi'kmaq Elders Albert and Murdena Marshall, business researchers can begin to bridge the divide between Indigenous ways of knowing and Western academic frameworks. This approach does not aim to blend these perspectives into one, but rather encourages scholars to view complex management and social responsibility issues through both eyes simultaneously, leveraging the unique strengths of each.
Using the framework established by Reid et al. (2021), the author outlines a circular, co-learning process for business research. This process begins by establishing mutual research interests and proceeds through co-developing research tools, validating findings with the community, and ensuring that all partners receive recognition. Unlike traditional business research that often views Indigenous communities as subjects to be studied, this approach positions the community as an active partner. The methodology emphasizes relational accountability, ensuring that researchers remain responsible to the communities, ancestors, and environments involved in their work.
To illustrate the versatility of Two-Eyed Seeing, the paper contrasts its application in an Indigenous-led organization (Clearwater Seafoods) and a non-Indigenous social enterprise (Shorefast Foundation). By applying the Two-Eyed Seeing framework, researchers can evaluate corporate success not just through traditional Western metrics like return on investment or market share, but also through Indigenous indicators such as community well-being, cultural continuity, and long-term stewardship of the land and sea. This holistic perspective offers a path forward for business scholarship to contribute directly to reconciliation and decolonization efforts.
Alex: Who gets to decide whether business research has succeeded? A proposed framework gives communities a role alongside researchers, using Indigenous and Western knowledge without merging them.
Sam: That sounds like more than adding community interviews to a conventional study. Whose proposal is this?
Alex: It’s a conceptual methods paper by C. Lynn Kendall at Memorial University of Newfoundland, published in conference proceedings in 2025. The title is “Two-Eyed Seeing in Business Scholarship.” Kendall argues that business research can draw on both knowledge systems while respecting their differences.
Sam: For researchers planning community partnerships, that could change who shapes the question and judges the answer.
Alex: And who benefits from the work. We’ll unpack the framework, follow its business examples, and distinguish what it proposes from what it actually demonstrates.
Sam: Start with the problem it addresses. What is missing from the way business research usually works?
Alex: Kendall describes business scholarship as relying heavily on Western research traditions. The broader history of research involving Indigenous peoples includes knowledge extraction without consent, misuse of data, and failure to credit participants. Communities were treated as subjects, rather than partners.
Sam: So the issue isn’t simply that researchers have overlooked another useful source of information. It’s also who controls knowledge and its use.
Alex: Kendall connects that history to hierarchies that privilege supposedly objective knowledge while dismissing relational, spiritual, narrative, or place-based knowledge. Decolonisation, here, means dismantling those colonial power structures in research. It requires changing how knowledge is produced, valued, and used.
Sam: Where does Two-Eyed Seeing enter that argument? Is Kendall introducing the idea?
Alex: No. The paper traces it to Mi’kmaq Elders Albert Marshall and Murdena Marshall. Its guiding principle is to see with the strengths of Indigenous knowledge through one eye, and Western knowledge through the other. Then use both together for everyone’s benefit.
AI-generated third-party summary by ResearchPod. Not official content or an endorsement by the paper authors or affiliated organizations.
Sam: The word “integrating” could suggest blending everything into a single method. Is that what the Elders intended?
Alex: Kendall explicitly says it is not. Each perspective retains distinct strengths and limitations. The paper also stresses that Mi’kmaw knowledge is only part of a much wider diversity of Indigenous knowledge systems.
Sam: That distinction matters. Otherwise, a researcher could treat “Indigenous knowledge” as one interchangeable category.
Alex: The paper pushes against that. Knowledge is collective, drawing on Elders, other Knowledge Holders, and communities. No individual holds all of it.
Sam: Kendall also describes her own background. What does that contribute to the research argument?
Alex: She identifies herself as having mixed Mi’kmaq and European ancestry and being a member of Qalipu First Nation. She is also an accountant, business owner, and scholar whose tourism work helped reconnect her with community. This establishes positionality: how her identity and relationships shape her research.
Sam: So that section does more than offer a biography. It shows the relationships to which the researcher is accountable.
Alex: That leads to relational accountability, meaning responsibility to the relationships involved in research. Kendall describes obligations to communities, land, ancestors, and future generations. Researchers are participants in those relationships, not simply outside observers.
Sam: How does that become a research process rather than a statement of good intentions?
Alex: Kendall uses a framework developed by Reid and colleagues in 2021. It describes a circular process of learning together. Partners begin with a mutual research interest, then identify appropriate tools and co-develop the research.
Sam: And they need to agree on more than what data to collect. Who decides whether the interpretation is acceptable?
Alex: The framework includes joint evaluation and community validation. It also calls for shared recognition and benefits, leading into a long-term relationship. Community involvement isn’t confined to recruitment or data collection.
Sam: Let’s make that concrete. Which businesses does Kendall use to show how this might work?
Alex: The first is Clearwater Seafoods. A Mi’kmaq-owned coalition and Premium Brands acquired the company for a billion dollars. The Mi’kmaq First Nations’ ownership share was half.
Sam: Those are substantial business stakes. How does the proposed research approach change what someone would study?
Alex: A conventional business analysis might examine profitability, investment, or supply-chain performance. Kendall puts those alongside Indigenous interests in marine stewardship and economic sovereignty. A mutual question would need to address both sets of priorities.
Sam: So a financially successful acquisition would not, by itself, establish success from the communities’ perspective.
Alex: In Kendall’s proposed evaluation, success includes community empowerment as well as economic indicators. Mi’kmaq communities would assess whether the acquisition aligns with their goals. That is different from researchers deciding, on their behalf, that financial returns tell the whole story.
Sam: What happens to the methods? Does this mean replacing financial analysis with storytelling?
Alex: Not replacing it. Kendall brings corporate finance and supply-chain tools alongside ecological knowledge, community engagement, and relational accountability. More generally, she discusses storytelling as a way of knowing, not merely a technique for gathering quotations.
Sam: The other organisation is non-Indigenous. Why include that comparison?
Alex: Kendall wants to show that the approach could extend beyond Indigenous-led businesses. Her example is Shorefast Foundation’s Fogo Island Inn, in Newfoundland and Labrador. It aims to regenerate the local economy while sustaining culture, identity, and ecological integrity.
Sam: That seems useful for asking what a tourism business contributes beyond its own revenue. What would researchers examine?
Alex: The proposed approach combines tourism analytics and business modelling with oral histories, lived experience, and community storytelling. Evaluation could consider employment and profitability alongside cultural continuity, local well-being, and youth engagement. Shorefast’s “economic nutrition” means tracing where money goes and who benefits.
Sam: But local knowledge in a non-Indigenous community isn’t automatically Indigenous knowledge. Does this example risk blurring the distinction the framework is meant to preserve?
Alex: That is a boundary readers should examine. Kendall labels this side of the comparison as Indigenous or local, depending on the organisation. I would read Shorefast as an illustration of the proposed extension, not proof that the knowledge traditions are equivalent.
Sam: That brings us to the evidence. Did Kendall conduct research with these organisations and compare the results against conventional methods?
Alex: No such comparison is reported. These are selected organisational illustrations, chosen for their prominence in Eastern Canada and community impact. The paper does not report interviews, a tested research intervention, or measured improvements attributable to Two-Eyed Seeing.
Sam: Then the acquisition’s scale establishes why the example matters, not whether the research framework works.
Alex: That’s the distinction. My assessment is that this is a useful design argument, not an effectiveness demonstration. It makes shared authority concrete, but does not establish whether projects using it deliver better outcomes than alternatives.
Sam: What is genuinely new, then, rather than borrowed from earlier work?
Alex: The contribution is its translation into business scholarship. Kendall draws on an existing guiding principle and an existing research framework. She maps them onto business questions, including governance, performance, stewardship, and community benefit.
Sam: Who should read the full document, and where should they begin?
Alex: Business researchers designing community partnerships should start with “Operationalising Two-Eyed Seeing in Business Scholarship.” Compare how Clearwater and Shorefast change the questions and measures of success. Then read “Understanding Indigenous Methodologies” and “Locating Myself in Research” for the responsibilities behind those choices.
Sam: And for someone outside business research, what is the line to remember?
Alex: Shared knowledge requires shared authority—not just more varied data.
Sam: Thanks for listening.