Login

How can IA practitioners practice self-reflexivity as part of applying culturally relevant GBA Plus in IA?

Self-reflexivity is the practice of critically examining one’s own biases, assumptions, and knowledge gaps, and is especially important in the context of applying culturally relevant GBA Plus. For IA practitioners, it is a crucial practice because it heightens awareness of how personal and systemic biases can influence the assessment process. Without this reflection, there is a risk of unintentionally reinforcing existing power imbalances and perpetuating colonial practices.

By engaging in self-reflection, practitioners can uncover and address gaps that might limit their understanding of the lived experiences of people from diverse identities including women, girls, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse peoples, Elders, people with disabilities and others. This openness to continuous learning and adaptation helps ensure that analysis, decision-making, and engagement strategies are culturally sensitive and responsive to the unique needs of diverse populations. Moreover, self-reflexivity fosters ongoing dialogue and collaboration, enabling practitioners to co-create more inclusive processes that genuinely respect Indigenous and local knowledges and perspectives. Embedding this practice into their work leads to more effective, equitable, and sustainable outcomes.

Additional details

Self-reflexive practices are vital for helping impact assessment practitioners recognize and respond to their biases and assumptions so that these do not undermine the impact assessment process. To engage in self-reflexivity, practitioners can ask themselves questions that challenge their assumptions and push them to consider important cultural context and other relevant details. 

Ensure Transparency and Accountability

Proponents should maintain transparency in the assessment process by clearly communicating objectives, methodologies, and findings to all participants in an IA, including the diverse communities involved. To enhance accountability, proponents can implement means to share and discuss feedback that addresses community concerns and grievances. This could involve using community insights to create socially and culturally reflective metrics, measures and key-performance indicators to assess the effects of policy, program and project development within a region (Iansen-Rogers and Molenkamp, 2010).

Cultivate intercultural humility to incorporate culturally relevant GBA Plus within IAs

  • Intercultural humility promotes the practice of self-reflexivity and appreciation for different communities’ cultural knowledges, beliefs and expertise, while encouraging respect for their communication styles (Lekas et. al., 2020; National COPA, 2024). 
  • Intercultural humility emphasizes the cultivation of mutual empowerment, negotiated partnerships, respect and continuous learning, and an accurate understanding of the cultural factors that shape communities’ boundaries (Foronda et. al., 2015). 
  • Proponents can develop their intercultural humility through reading case studies, engaging in ongoing dialogue with community members, and listening to communities to understand their gendered and culturally diverse perspectives. 

Some areas for consideration when examining one’s biases and assumptions are as follows:

  • Historical, cultural, and social context
    • How does the project consider Indigenous Knowledge, traditions and practices? Are these approaches appropriate, and if so, how are they being honoured and upheld in the project’s design and implementation?
    • What are relevant historical and ongoing systems of oppression (e.g., colonialism, racism, sexism) affecting the context of the project? How can historic and contemporary injustices and their consequences be considered in all aspects of the IA process?
  • Intersecting gender dynamics
    • How do traditional and contemporary gendered roles in affected communities shape the IA process? For instance, what effects might these have on who participates in the process and how, or on whose priorities and needs are reflected in the process?
    • How might they have different and uneven effects on women, men, girls and boys, Two-Spirit people, gender diverse peoples, people with disabilities, people living with poverty, and others with distinct experiences?
    • What can you do as a practitioner to ensure that the tools you are using as part of an IA make space for the participation of often excluded community members, including people with disabilities and racialized people, Indigenous women and girls, Two-Spirit and gender diverse people, and others?
  • Broad societal assumptions
    • How do systems of oppression (racism, ableism, sexism, colonialism, etc.) shape common approaches in IA and how can these be adjusted?
    • How do these systems shape your personal ideas about different groups of people, including Indigenous women and girls, Two-Spirit, gender diverse people, racialized people, people with disabilities, people living with poverty, and others?
    • What can you do to counter these biases and ensure they do not negatively impact your practice?
  • Organizational and assessment practices
    • How do the policies and practices in our organization make it easier or harder for different groups of people to participate in the IA process? What can we do to even out opportunities for participation?
    • How do our assessment tools privilege some forms of knowledge over others? What can we do to address this?
    • What systems or procedures do we have in place that make it difficult for affected communities to share their knowledge and exercise leadership in the process and how can we change these?
    • How do common metrics we use to assess effects prioritize impacts on some groups of people over others? How can we develop metrics that are more attentive to the diverse experiences of community members, including people living with poverty, lone mothers, Indigenous women and girls, Two-Spirit, gender diverse people, people with disabilities, racialized people, and others?
    • How might our understanding of evaluation and monitoring be leaving out the experiences and knowledges of often excluded communities and how can we change our practices in response? 

Incorporating these reflexive questions and considerations into IA practice supports the application of GBA Plus that is culturally relevant and promotes the empowerment and wellbeing of diverse affected communities.

Examples

Reflexivity in impact assessment includes carefully considering and challenging personal, institutional, and/or structural biases and assumptions and how these shape the assessment process and its outcomes. This includes challenging the centrality and authority of western science in IA. Western science shapes the structure and methods of assessments, how effects are measured and assessed, and what is considered appropriate mitigation. This, in turn, shapes conclusions, recommendations, and decisions within the IA. Indigenous Knowledges are often treated as discrete pieces of information removed from their context and used to serve a particular purpose in an IA. As McGregor (2021) explains, “Removed from its original context, Indigenous Knowledge invariably suffers from a loss and/or distortion of meaning, which can result in a variety of negative consequences” (p. 1). Reflexivity involves considering how Indigenous Knowledge is gathered and incorporated into an IA and whether current approaches are causing harm. Reflection on how to meaningfully engage with Indigenous Knowledge could lead to supporting Indigenous-led or co-led assessments. Indigenous Peoples share their Knowledge in ways that reflect their unique traditions and protocols. This can include oral storytelling, land-based teachings, ceremonies, written formats, or even videos. Sharing such Knowledge is more than an exchange of information—it is an act of trust and respect, which comes with the responsibility to honor the community’s established protocols. Effective integration of Indigenous Knowledge into impact assessments often happens through studies led by the communities themselves, ensuring their perspectives are authentically represented. These studies may then be provided to project proponents and incorporated into the Impact Statement, later shared with the Agency, Review Panel, or regional assessment committee. However, it is essential to obtain the explicit consent of the Indigenous community before their knowledge is used or shared within the assessment process, maintaining respect and integrity throughout.

In IAs, reflexive practice involves considering unequal power relations among IA practitioners, government, Indigenous groups, community organizations, etc. This includes considering the roles and responsibilities of government in the context of historical and ongoing colonial relations and efforts toward reconciliation. The Harmonized Impact Assessment for the Twinning of the TransCanada Highway was done in response to previous failed attempts at the project in which there were unequal power relations. The MOU that was signed between four Anishinaabe Nations and the government was meant to “guide the relationship and the engagement process based on a spirit of cooperation and collaboration” (Harmonized Impact Assessment, 2021, pg. 1).  It is important to highlight that this does not represent a new form of IA but rather a groundbreaking and pivotal report that brings together the voices and perspectives of Indigenous groups. 

Examining biases and power relations in IA engagement processes would involve considering who is invited to and able to participate in the assessment, figuring out culturally appropriate forms of engagement, and examining barriers that exist for participation. Individuals, groups, or organizations could be missed for any number of reasons, including inexperience or unfamiliarity with the region or populations. Similarly, engagement approaches that are appropriate for the community may be unknown to people outside the community. Acknowledging that there may be biases or knowledge gaps amongst the individuals on the assessment team can lead to creating assessment processes that seek help from those with experience in the region and issues, especially local people and organizations. Part of this, however, will require considering power relations when seeking this help, addressing barriers to participation, and offering compensation.  

Some assessment processes have established working groups made of key government and community organizations that help to guide or inform the process. The Nunavut Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), for instance, created a working group that included members of the federal government, provincial government, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. This group had the capacity to help plan culturally appropriate engagement as well as inform the SEA process and content. For instance, the final SEA report written by the Nunavut Impact Review Board explains the role of the working group and communities included, highlighting the importance of and need for paying attention to Inuit knowledge. It notes the point made in a Qikiqtani Inuit Association report that Inuit knowledge “is not information that can be understood in isolation from its context or separated from the holders of this knowledge” (p. 49, volume 3). As a result, The Nunavut Impact Review Board changed the SEA process to involve more opportunities for knowledge holders to directly participate in the process and it went to ten different communities on multiple occasions throughout the SEA process to facilitate this.

Reflexivity in impact assessments can also lead to challenging assumptions about what valued components are important and how effects and significance are measured. While there are often lists of typical valued components (VCs) used in an area, what components are valuable in a particular place will also be shaped by the history, culture, and knowledge systems in those places and thus VCs or conclusions may be different from those of consultants or government. For instance, in the Cedar LNG assessment, Indigenous groups were given the opportunity to draft sections of the report. In its section, Kitselas First Nation explained that the term “components” was inappropriate from their perspective because it suggests the breaking up of the natural and human world into different parts. Because of this, they came up with their own approach based on Kitselas values and used this to assess the project’s likely effects. Similarly, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s assessment of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tanker Expansion Proposal assessed the project using its Stewardship Policy, which is “an expression of our inherent jurisdiction and law” (p. 3). The first lens of this policy examines the project’s likely adverse effects while the second weighs the adverse effects against the project’s positive effects. The second lens, however, is only used if the first concludes that legal principles are not violated. In this assessment, the project did not pass lens one and thus the recommendation was to not support the project. Despite this, the project was approved, and the Nation continues to assert its rights/title in relation to the project. 

Citations and useful resources

See All Frequently Asked Questions