A few weeks ago, after deciding I wanted to delve deeper into ecological restoration, I did what I often do when I want to learn more about something: I searched YouTube. After one or two shorter videos, I wanted a more in-depth perspective. Scrolling down, I found a 77-minute webinar recording about indigenous knowledge and ecological restoration. This article shares some of my reflections on this talk.
An Unexpected Twist
In the first 12 minutes of the video, the host Dr. Shirley Thompson went through several slides, talking about the webinar series and promoting an upcoming workshop before introducing the main speaker, Dr. Stewart Hill. So far, this fell right in line with my past experiences of science webinars.
Then Dr. Hill introduced himself and talked about his background as an indigenous person and scientist. Maybe 10 or 15 minutes in, I began to wonder when he was going to get to the main part of his talk. It’s not that I was bored, I just wasn’t used to such a long introduction before starting the slide show.
Well, the slides never came. After listening with great interest to Dr. Hill for 35 minutes, he announced the end of his talk and opened the floor for questions.
How’d he keep my attention for so long without showing a single slide?
This was a light-bulb moment for me. It made me start to question my own assumptions about how knowledge is communicated in these types of settings.
Background Info
Before I go any further, a bit of context.
I was raised on Western Science. Throughout grade school, college, graduate school, and most of my professional life, I trained in the scientific method. And although I’ve had an interest in indigenous knowledge systems for well over a decade, I have a fairly limited working understanding of them.
Dr. Stewart Hill is a holder of both indigenous knowledge and western scientific knowledge. He is a member of the God’s Lake First Nation, located in modern day Manitoba, Canada. He holds a PhD from the University of Manitoba Natural Resources Institute.
This webinar was my first encounter with Dr. Hill and his work.
Some Takeaways
As alluded to earlier, one key lesson for me from watching the webinar was the style of the talk itself: 0% slides, 100% storytelling. The way that Dr. Hill was able to share information in a simple, engaging way stood out to me. Now, that’s not to say that good storytelling is absent from science. On the contrary, one of the most memorable talks I’ve ever attended–a seminar by Dr. James Lendemer about his lichen research–was memorable precisely because of good storytelling. Dr. Lendemer did use slides, but they comprised of just one or two photos each on a simple black background with no text, and each slide was accompanied by a contextual story about the research.
Beyond the storytelling style, several things from the substance of Dr. Hill’s talk also stood out to me. For instance, he talked about the historical context leading to the current state of his community. Specifically, he shared a story passed down to him from an elder about how the British crown had promised his ancestors protection and abundance and about how this promise has yet to be fulfilled.
He also shared a story of a tough lesson from his own experience interviewing an indigenous elder. As the story goes, he peppered the man with (well-intentioned) questions to the point of frustration, ultimately ending the interview. This taught him the importance of asking open ended questions and then listening without interrupting, which he explained is important in his culture. He contrasted this with the conversation style he has encountered in board meetings of people talking over each other.
This relates to another thing I took away from the talk: how indigenous knowledge and western science are different like apples and oranges. He cautioned against trying to make one into the other. Instead, he advocated for bringing the two together as different and complementary ways of understanding the world towards conducting better ecological restoration. Like fruit salad, the two can be combined to make a richer dish.
In my mind, these examples all point to something bigger: the groundwork needed for effective partnership between indigenous and scientific communities.
Closing
I’m still early in my exploration of ecological restoration and arguably even earlier in my understanding of indigenous knowledge systems. This webinar is one data point in what I expect will be a long learning process. But it’s already shifting my perspective about what effective communication can look like and about what it takes for true collaboration between scientists and indigenous communities (acknowledging also that there are some like Dr. Stewart Hill who live in both worlds).
Dr. Hill’s talk has left me with some questions to take forward with me in this exploration. What does it take for indigenous communities to have “a seat at the table”, as Dr. Hill put it? How much groundwork and relationship-building needs to happen before the technical work of ecological restoration can even begin?
I don’t have the answers yet, but I’m listening.
AI RESPONSIBILITY RUBRIC
This rubric shows human vs AI contribution across stages of writing this article. Percentages were calculated by AI and verified by human.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CONCEPT/PLANNING
Human 70% | AI 30%
[==============......]
AI: Claude Sonnet 4.5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RESEARCH/VERIFICATION
Human 90% | AI 10%
[==================..]
AI: Claude Sonnet 4.5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
WRITING
Human 95% | AI 5%
[===================.]
AI: Claude Sonnet 4.5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
EDITING/REFINEMENT
Human 60% | AI 40%
[============........]
AI: Claude Sonnet 4.5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
AI Tools: Claude Sonnet 4.5 (March 2026)