Bridging Knowledge Systems in Convergence Research: Community-Centered and Place-Based Approaches in Lake Superior's Keweenaw Bay

Bridging Knowledge Systems in Convergence Research: Community-Centered and Place-Based Approaches in Lake Superior's Keweenaw Bay | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Case Report Bridging Knowledge Systems in Convergence Research: Community-Centered and Place-Based Approaches in Lake Superior's Keweenaw Bay Melissa Baird, Valoree Gagnon, Judith Perlinger, Larissa Juip, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7151631/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study presents results from an NSF-funded convergence research project conducted in partnership with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (TRIBAL PARTNER) in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. While convergence research frameworks often emphasize deep integration, we argue that participatory, place-based, and community-led convergence requires maintaining an integrity of difference. Through a systematic literature review, surveys and qualitative interviews, we examined how team members operationalized convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) framework. Two cross-cutting dynamics -- time arcs and frictions -- emerged as central to shaping convergence in practice. Our findings demonstrate that long-term partnerships, ethical engagement, and adaptive collaboration can transform tensions into productive spaces for knowledge co-production. Expanding the convergence canon to support epistemic plurality strengthens community-led research, sustains collaborations, and offers insights for those practicing convergence amid growing political and institutional pressures on public science. Community and place-based convergence research Indigenous knowledge Indigenous-University partnerships Socio-ecological systems Canon MAJORS Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Socio-ecological practice research (SEPR) seeks to address complex, real-world problems. Convergence research has emerged as one such model and brings together diverse disciplines, knowledge systems, and methods to address complex societal challenges. The National Academies (2014) defines convergence as the integration of ideas and technologies to create a "common set of concepts and metrics and a common understanding about goals.” (NRC 2014, pp. 20–21). The term also refers to the process of moving toward a unified point (Specht and Crowston 2022 ; Wilson 2019 ). 1 Convergence research serves as a conceptual framework, a value orientation, and a guiding theory. It is problem-driven, team-based, and focused on the integration of knowledge (Roco et al. 2013b ; NSF 2019). It aims to accelerate research by incorporating diverse perspectives, expertise, knowledge systems, methods, tools, and analytical approaches (NRC 2014; NSF 2016; Sharp and Langer 2011 ). The National Science Foundation's (NSF) inclusion of "Growing Convergence Research" as one of its 10 Big Ideas aimed to stimulate innovation and transformative solutions (NSF 2018; see also National Research Council 2014 ). While convergence may be conceptualized differently by governmental agencies, researchers, international science bodies, industry partners, and community organizations, it is broadly understood as a pathway for knowledge generation and problem-solving (Eyre et al. 2021 ; National Research Council 2014 ). Convergence teams are intentionally structured to broaden participation and build partnerships across difference. These teams may include scientists, community members, and representatives from industry or non-profits who build capacity, share expertise, and work toward solving complex research problems. The promise of convergence research lies in its potential to tackle multi-scalar problems that no single discipline or sector can resolve alone. The core principles of convergence research have a long history and are embedded in a variety of research traditions (see e.g., Israel et al., 1998 , pp.175). Team science, for example, is a convergent approach that engages multiple investigators on projects with shared goals (Fiore 2008 ; NRC 2015). The science of team science (SciTS) supports translational collaboration across the research enterprise (Fiore 2008 ). Similarly, community-based participatory projects also have exemplified convergence approaches by collaborating with communities on research largely driven by community-defined needs (e.g., Finn and Collman 2016). While team science and community-based participatory research have long engaged communities and researchers, as well as multiple knowledge systems, recent efforts to formalize convergence research have codified collaborations into models that prioritize integration (Roco et al. 2013b ; NSF 2019). These formalizations can risk undermining epistemic plurality and relational accountability. Moreover, community-defined priorities may be deprioritized, especially when they do not align with institutional objectives. As we engaged in convergence research, our team identified a conundrum in the emphasis on ‘deep integration’ as a core tenet. While the grant solicitation encouraged bringing together a diverse team, the recommended “integrative” approach lends itself to the assimilation of knowledge. We argue that practicing convergence research does not require ‘deep integration,’ but instead calls for a recognition of the integrity of diverse approaches and epistemologies. Expanding the convergence canon -- the prevailing assumptions, models, and approaches used to define convergence -- is essential for supporting community-centered, participatory research. Bridging knowledge systems, rather than integrating them, enables collaborative research that honors boundaries and is better suited to address complex or wicked problems, particularly in contexts where cultural and ecological stakes are high (Xiang 2013 ). This distinction is especially important given the significant influence of major American research and funding organizations (MAJORs) such as the National Academy of Sciences or National Science Foundation, whose experts and funding mechanisms shape research agendas and priorities. 2 This article presents data and insights from our qualitative study on convergence research. We sought to understand how researchers and multidisciplinary teams work to "integrate" research across disciplinary and cultural boundaries. Our goal was to advance both theoretical understandings and provide practical insights on convergence research undertaken within an Indigenous-university partnership (Hill and Coleman 2019 ). In this article, we first describe the project’s context, including team history, guiding principles, and the development of the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) conceptual model. We then describe the qualitative study, including the systematic literature review, surveys, and interviews. Finally, we present our analyses and their implications for convergence research practice, particularly regarding timelines, epistemological frictions, and the importance of maintaining an integrity of difference in community-centered research. 2. Context and Background 2.1 Researcher Positionality Our team includes tribal, academic, and community-based researchers working across multiple institutions. We situate our claims within larger socio-political and historical contexts and are committed to learning about the histories and contemporary issues of place that foster policies and practices of care and reciprocity. This article is a collaborative effort by nine researchers from three institutions within an Indigenous-university partnership. Information on the author positionality can be found at [insert project website]. 2.2 Project Context and Location This research project is situated within the ancestral and contemporary homelands of the TRIBAL PARTNER, a federally recognized Ojibwa tribe (1936) who live on the shores of Ojibwe Gichigami (“Ojibwa’s Great Sea,” Lake Superior) in present-day Upper Michigan (Fig. 1 ). TRIBAL PARTNER s one of eleven member tribes of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), a government partner and contributor to our project team. Figure 1 presents a map of the Great Lakes Region and study area. The project was designed to prioritize stewardship and resource management and provide timely, relevant, and responsive information to our tribal partners who are working to steward and restore cultural and ecosystem health. It was developed to support the TRIBAL PARTNER -- a subsistence fishing community– by addressing their concerns related to toxic contamination and climate-related changes that affect the health of fish populations as well as the broader community. Fish hold significant cultural value and are essential sources of protein, Omega-3 and − 6 fatty acids, and other nutrients. However, fish have also become sources of toxic chemicals to humans. These toxic chemicals disrupt physical and socio-cultural relationships within the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) (Gagnon et al. 2018; Gagnon 2015; Gagnon 2016; Norman 2015 ). This research builds on a 15-year collaboration between researchers at UNIVERSITY A and TRIBAL PARTNER, which began in 2010. That year, ANONYMOUS and ANONYMOUS began a partnership to investigate how contamination and resource impairments impact socio-ecological systems, focusing on the importance of harvesting fish to tribal lifeways. In 2013, ANONYMOUS on began an NSF-funded Dynamics of Coupled Human-Natural Systems Program project (2013–2018), a predecessor to the Dynamics of Integrated Socio-Environmental Systems (DISES) Program. This project included over thirty investigators from four academic institutions, with ANONYMOUS as a primary partner and ten additional partnering organizations. The team examined global-to-regional scale transport and delivery of atmosphere-surface exchangeable pollutants, or “ASEPs'' to the Laurentian Great Lakes (Perlinger et al. 2016) and studied the effects of international and national policies on those processes (Perlinger et al. 2018). In 2017, the current team members began pursuing additional funding to expand this work. Over the last fifteen years, ANONYMOUS researchers have expanded these collaborations to understand and mitigate the physical, chemical, and biological factors that cause concentrations of chemicals in fish tissue to vary by up to two orders of magnitude in these lakes. Our models bring in these factors to understand ecological relationships, particularly in practices like fish harvesting, stocking, and land use management. Project activities included mapping contamination levels, exploring risk mitigation strategies, and supporting sustainable human-environment relationships (ANONYMOUS. The current project extends this work by incorporating historical and political contexts–particularly treaty histories and land use–into socio-ecological models. These histories are essential to understanding present-day ecological dynamics and for planning a sustainable future. 2.3 Community Engaged Research The research project was designed to center community priorities. The team focused on accountability and relational engagement, guided by TRIBAL PARTNER identified needs. Our research team was guided by four principles: 1) redistributing power in the research process; 2) respecting cultural knowledge and data sovereignty; 3) establishing protocols for ethical considerations; and 4) partnering for long-term sustained engagement (Christopher et al. 2011 ; Israel et al.1998). These principles were agreed upon during the research design to ensure that research objectives, methods, and ethical protocols were aligned to ensure to conduct our research responsibly and with sensitivity (see, e.g., Barnhardt and Kawagley 2005 ). At the start of the project, TRIBAL PARTNER members and some members of the research team created a “Seasons of Research” guide to facilitate ethically grounded research with/by/as TRIBAL PARTNER (Shaw et al. 2022). The guide provides best practices to promote reciprocity, responsibility, and respect in research; relationship building is the first "season of research." One critical element of building relationships we have found is consent. King ( 2019 :9) identifies four distinct and necessary elements of Indigenous consent: restorative, epistemic, reciprocal, and legitimate (King 2019 :9). Epistemic consent, rooted in Indigenous knowledge, is central to understanding Indigenous relationships and obligations to land and place. In this model, consent is not about justice and rights but is a necessary foundation for decision-making and ethical engagement. As King ( 2019 :64) argues, the "long-term stewardship of the land allows Indigenous people to constantly reassess, plan, and adapt," in contrast to the "short-term view of Western environmental policies and practices.” The team also drew on Indigenous scholarship and frameworks to define shared research practices. We sought to bridge knowledge and expertise in our community-engaged research partnerships (Latulippe 2015 ), building on Cree scholar Willie Ermine's (2007:194) “ethical space of engagement.” Ermine describes this space as one "between the Indigenous and Western thought worlds. The space is initially conceptualized by the unwavering construction of difference and diversity between human communities. These differences highlight uniqueness, as each entity is shaped from distinct histories, knowledge traditions, philosophies, and socio-political realities. Rather than erasing differences, this space treats them as foundational (see also Poole 1972 . Ermine's ethical space builds the context for bridging knowledges. This has been described as ‘weaving’ (Kimmerer 2022 ), ‘braiding’ (Wilcox et al. 2023 ), and ‘co-production’ (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2022 ). We conceptualize this space as a bridge and shared space of practice. Team members bring distinct intellects and ‘toolboxes’ (e.g., skills, approaches, worldviews) and sustain the project by developing shared expectations and vocabularies grounded in shared ethics. Bridging intellectual and ethical spaces rebalance relationships between researchers and communities. Bridging knowledges is not a matter of consensus, but of collaboration and mutual respect. This practice maintains the integrity of diverse ways of knowing. Western sciences prioritize empirical observation and validation ("seeing is believing”). Indigenous sciences emphasize the gift of “listening.” Grounded in relational, emotional intellect and rooted in place-based experiences, knowledge through listening is gained across multiple generations, often inclusive of sensory insights well beyond human audio capacities. Bridging serves as pathways for developing shared intentions and actions. As such, bridging is a place for direct interactions . The emphasis is on cooperation , recognizing differences are complementary strengths that enhance collective outcomes. Bridging maintains the integrities of diverse ways of knowing as a grounded and embodied practice . For example, project team members join with TRIBAL PARTNER members at community events such as Garden for Heart at the community garden and Water Walks. Additional participatory research practices include participation in pow-wows, restoration of mining-impacted landscapes, tribal council meetings, partner meetings, wild rice camp, and presenting research at workshops, symposia, and conferences. 2.4 Conceptual Framework: The Tribal Landscape System (TLS) The Tribal Landscape System (TLS) was developed as both a conceptual model and an analytic to understand a dynamic, place-based socio-ecological system. The TLS was designed to provide a way to analyze system processes and dynamics that link ecological change with community well-being. As described by the research team, the TLS is a "dynamic and integrated socio-ecological system (SES) directly impacted by anthropogenic toxic contamination and climate-related changes." It was designed to bridge ecological and social sciences with Indigenous ways of knowing, by promoting "two-eyed" seeing (Bartlett et al. 2012 ; Kutz and Tomaselli 2019 ; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014 ; Reid et al. 2021 ). Unlike traditional SES models that couple two discrete systems, the TLS emphasizes interdependent interactions shaped by atmospheric contaminant deposition and climate-related changes. 3 The TLS centers Indigenous knowledge and place-based practices as foundational to both ecological knowledge and practices, and how these work within a framework of reciprocal social relations and ethical practices. Ecological components of the TLS include watersheds and food webs, while the social components include the TRIBAL PARTNER institutions, governance systems, cultural practices, histories, and relationships. These knowledge systems incorporate kinship structures, cultural and stewardship practices, and culturally-important foods. The model foregrounds interdependence and connectivity -- emphasizing feedback mechanisms and relationships. Integration --now reframed as bridging– within the TLS occurs on two levels. The first level concerns interactions between abiotic and biotic processes. For example, we examined how abiotic processes such as runoff inputs, air-water exchange, contamination sequestration in sediments, and attributes (e.g., lake and watershed size) interact with biotic components such as food webs. These processes affect resource quality through mechanisms such as trophic magnification of contaminants. Our research sought to understand how these interactions connect to socio-cultural practices–particularly community fish harvesting and stocking and how they influence ecosystem attributes (e.g., species and size structure of fish populations, contaminant concentrations in fish) and the impacts for human health and practices. The second level of the TLS model accounts for histories, governance, and community relations. We recognized that treaties and legal or administrative relationships shape how people care for and manage their lands (e.g., Held 2019 ; Wildcat et al. 2014 ). At the same time, relationships and stewardship responsibilities are maintained through practice. Governance mediates which landscapes are used for harvesting fish and gathering foods, just as much as the physical processes shape ecological outcomes. We hypothesized that, just as abiotic factors affect ecological dynamics, governance and history structure human-land relationships and practices. As we are finding, outcomes of these interactions and processes vary widely and can both enhance and pose risks to both human community health and well-being, as well as more-than-human relationships. For example, our characterization of fish (e.g., walleye and lake trout) in the TLS accounts for their role in the food web, their significance to tribal fisheries, and their role as cultural keystone species. Understanding the TLS as a socio-ecological system (SES) framework offers several benefits. It provides a language and conceptual model to discuss insights into complex and dynamic relationships. As we are finding, changes in one component - e.g., contamination or degraded ecosystems - can significantly influence and affect the system. While the TLS originally served as a practical tool to facilitate dialogue and feedback, and was used to inform project decisions, it also serves as a model that reorients management approaches toward relational obligations. 3. Methods Our methods aimed to analyze how convergence research is conceptualized, negotiated, and practiced by team members over time. We used a qualitative research design to examine how project team members conceptualized and practiced convergence research and understood the Tribal Landscape System (TLS). Methods included a literature review, two surveys, participant observation, and semi-structured interviews. This approach allowed us to understand how team members’ understandings evolved through collaboration. 3.1 Research Design To assess how convergence was conceptualized within the research team, designed a three-part qualitative research design that included a systematic literature review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews. This design aimed to evaluate how team members understood both convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System (TLS). Social scientists on the team developed a standardized protocol for all components of the study. Baird led the protocol, following PRISMA guidelines to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency (Moher et al. 2015 ). Project findings informed a series of structured writing and dialogue workshops with the project leadership team during 2023–2024. We began with a systematic literature review to assess the current state of knowledge and best practices. These data were used to inform our qualitative methods (i.e., surveys and semi-structured interviews). We asked: How do team members understand convergence research or the Tribal Landscape System. This question allowed us to analyze how definitions and assumptions shaped the team's research practices, collaborations, and decision-making, as well as knowledge production. 3.2 Systematic Literature Review We systematically collected and evaluated literature by searching multiple academic databases -- Google Scholar, Web of Science, and JSTOR - using predefined search terms and Boolean operators (Pati 2008). Search strings included combinations such as ("convergence research" OR "convergence science") AND ("NSF" OR "transdisciplinary" OR "interdisciplinary"), and limited results to peer-reviewed articles published in English and restricted studies to those conducted within North America. We then categorized the results into pre-2013 and post-2013 publications, focusing our analysis on 30 articles published after 2013 that explicitly addressed convergence research methods that aligned with NSF's convergence criteria. We used qualitative data analysis tool (MaxQDA) to conduct inductive open-coding and to analyze and annotate. We identified key definitions, thematic trends, and gaps and the methods and theories, noting how authors defined convergence research (or did not) (Auerbach and Silverstein 2003). These results informed both an internal synthesis of current convergence research practices and the development of a working conceptual model for the social science team and provided a context for the design of the survey. While convergence literature provides widely-cited definitions emphasizing integration, interdisciplinarity, and problem-orientation, as we describe later these frameworks are often interpreted, adapted, or negotiated in practice by team members during collaborative work. Table 1 presents definitions and core themes from a selection of sources. Note that some sources (e.g., Tornow et al., 2018 ; Oerther 2019 ) adopt existing definitions. Table 1 Key definitions and core themes of convergence literature Source Definition of convergence Core themes Wachtendorf et al. ( 2013 , p.497) "The massive movement of personnel, information and material to a disaster site…. known as convergence." Disaster response; resource and personnel management. Roco and Bainbridge ( 2013a , p.1) "Convergence of knowledge and technology for the benefit of society (CKTS)…defined as the escalating and transformative interactions among seemingly different disciplines, technologies, communities, and domains of human activity to achieve mutual compatibility, synergism, and integration" Societal benefit; integration of disciplines; synergies National Research Council ( 2014 , p.1) "Convergence…cuts across disciplinary boundaries. It integrates knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking .... a comprehensive synthetic framework for tackling scientific and societal challenges that exist at the interfaces of multiple fields." Cross-disciplinary integration; problem-solving; comprehensive frameworks National Science Foundation ( 2016 ) "a means of solving vexing research problems…driven by a specific and compelling problem...deep integration across disciplines." Problem-driven, deep interdisciplinary integration Tornow et al. ( 2018 ) Adopts NSF definition of convergence. Challenge-driven; disciplinary integration; form new paradigms Oerther ( 2019 , p.2265) Adopts NSF definition of convergence. Problem focus; transdisciplinary collaboration; addressing scientific and social needs National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019, p.2) "Emphasizing an integration of knowledge and ways of thinking to tackle complex challenges and achieve new and innovative solutions." Knowledge integration; innovation; tackling complex challenges Peek (2020, p.1) "An approach to knowledge production and action that involves diverse teams working together in novel ways – transcending disciplinary and organizational boundaries – to address vexing social, economic, environmental, and technical challenges." Team collaboration; addressing social and technological challenges; promoting well-being Insights from the literature review informed, in part, the design of our survey instrument. We developed a working conceptual definition of convergence to guide our internal discussions – and to serve as a point of comparison with participant responses. Our working definition was that convergence research is “a problem-driven approach that brings together diverse disciplines, knowledge systems, and methods to collaboratively address complex societal challenges.” The Tribal Landscape System was defined in our grant submission and preceded data collection, serving as a reference point for assessing how team members interpreted, aligned, diverged, or expanded existing definitions. 3.3 Surveys and Interviews To capture baseline perceptions of the TLS among project team members, we conducted an online survey that included both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Participants were asked about their work settings, roles, familiarity with the TLS, definitions of convergence, the value of the Indigenous-University partnership, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on team collaboration and project progress. Sample questions included: "How well do you think the tribal landscape system includes your contributions to the research project?" and "How do you define convergence research in your work?" Participants represented diverse institutional affiliations: 44% reported university or academic appointments, 44% identified as tribal government or community members, and 11% were affiliated with federal agencies. Most respondents (78%) indicated that their work contributions were reflected in the TLS framework; 22% expressed uncertainty or disagreement about whether their work fit within the TLS model. When asked to describe their understanding of the TLS, respondents identified both ecological and cultural components, citing fish contaminant levels, treaty rights, governance, environmental policy decisions, and cultural well-being. While the TLS served as a shared reference point, responses tended to reflect discipline-specific emphases based on project roles. Several members noted that the TLS framework did not fully capture broader political or economic factors affecting the Tribal socio-ecological system. When asked to define convergence, most respondents framed it as a collaborative problem-solving approach. Definitions included "bringing together people and knowledge to solve a problem" and "a community problem-driven approach where TEK and western science are treated as separate and equal." Interestingly, no respondents referenced formal convergence frameworks such as those articulated by NSF (2016) or NASEM (2019). Instead, participants described convergence in practical, team-based terms rooted in the team’s work. These early patterns foreshadowed the role-based and negotiated understandings of convergence that would emerge more explicitly in the subsequent interviews. All participants indicated that the Indigenous-University partnership provided meaningful opportunities for collaboration and co-learning. Several emphasized that the partnership allowed Indigenous knowledge to inform decision-making processes affecting the Tribal landscape. Finally, 78% reported that COVID-19 disrupted research timelines, travel, and engagement, while 22% indicated limited or no impacts. The survey revealed that the TLS and convergence were engaged as flexible, role-specific frameworks developed through practice rather than as fixed theoretical models. These findings informed the interview protocols used in the qualitative phase. Following the survey, we conducted eight semi-structured interviews lasting 40–60 minutes each to gain deeper understanding into how team members operationalized "convergence research" and their understanding of the TLS model (Bateson 1972; Goffman 1974). The semi-structured interview protocol was designed to elicit participants’ perspectives on convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System (TLS). The protocol covered five topic areas: (1) roles and responsibilities within the project; (2) individual definitions and operationalizations of convergence research; (3) perspectives of the TLS model (4) experiences with university-tribal-community partnerships, including ethical considerations and community protections; and (5) project-level issues such as goal alignment, timelines, and data sovereignty. The interviews included visual prompts, including the TLS model diagram, were used to support discussion. The protocol incorporated both open-ended questions and targeted probes to ensure consistency across interviews while allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate based on their roles and experiences. We selected a semi-structured format to compare across participant experiences. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative analysis techniques, in combination with prior survey data and our project documentation (e.g., reports and shared working documents). Using open coding, we identified recurring themes and grouped these into broad analytic categories and refined in team meetings. In 2022, we designed and administered a follow-up survey to collect longitudinal data and assess changes in team members' understandings of convergence and the TLS over time. Insights from the project qualitative data were analyzed and used to inform team workshops and will be described in the following section. The second survey, administered in 2022 (n = 7), allowed us to assess how participant understandings of convergence and the TLS evolved over the course of the project. Compared to the baseline survey, respondents in the second survey reported slightly higher familiarity with convergence research: 57% strongly agreed they were familiar with the term. Responses to TLS questions in the second survey remained largely consistent with the baseline findings. Most participants agreed that the TLS framework captured their work, though several continued to emphasize that the model may not fully capture external sociopolitical or economic factors influencing the Tribal landscape. The TLS continued to be described as both ecological and cultural, with respondents highlighting elements such as fish contamination, treaty rights, cultural well-being, and governance — clearly reiterating themes from the previous survey and interviews. Many again stressed the importance of linking environmental sampling with community health, governance, and intergenerational cultural practices. When asked about challenges in convergence research, the second survey reinforced concerns already identified in interviews and the baseline survey: disciplinary barriers (identified by 86% of respondents), goal alignment (identified by 86%), data sovereignty (29%), and community protections (43%). Communication, shared authorship, and learning each other’s disciplinary languages were also flagged as sources of tension. Finally, as in the first survey, respondents strongly agreed that the University-Indigenous partnership contributed to positive community outcomes. Limitations include the restriction of the literature review to post-2013 publications from North America, which may have excluded relevant perspectives from earlier or international work. The small sample size and limited number and diversity of survey and interview participants could affect the generalizability of our findings. Potential biases in coding and theme development may have influenced our analyses. Despite these limitations, this study did reveal some key challenges and opportunities in practicing convergence research across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Our findings reflect how convergence was practiced on the ground –through negotiation—rather than applied as a static framework. The following section presents core findings and how interdisciplinary teams navigate complexity. 4. Results This section reports the study’s main findings, followed by a discussion of two cross-cutting themes – time arcs and frictions – that shaped how team members conceptualized and practiced convergence research. 4.1 Overview of Key Findings We found that in the literature, convergence research is most commonly applied in disaster management, risk analysis, health, engineering and technology. This trend reflects both the urgency and complexity of these domains, involving high-stakes problems requiring cross-disciplinary coordination, rapid response, and scaffolded expertise. These studies employ mixed methods - for example, quantitative modeling, geospatial analysis, to address so-called "wicked problems." Disciplines such as sociology and public policy are represented, though less frequently. Fields such as urban planning and education remain less prominent. We attribute this pattern to funding structures that prioritize "traditional" STEM fields. While funders and researchers recognize the value of social science perspectives, structural and institutional barriers continue to limit methodological diversity, even as the convergence canon shifts (Peek et al. 2020 ). The literature review also revealed that the discourse on convergence research consistently emphasized integration. However, we argue that this emphasis can unknowingly privilege academic or scientific knowledge as the default. This framing could risk marginalizing forms of expertise rooted in place or community. Knowledge is dynamic, situated, and culturally produced; privileging "integration" over epistemic plurality may limit the scope and transformative impact of convergence research (NRC 2015). As discussed, orientations that prioritize weaving or bridging knowledges centers local and place-based knowledges (see Reid et al., 2021 ). These orientations also offer a necessary means of confronting the colonial legacies embedded in research practices and institutions (Smith 1999 ). For example, incorporating Indigenous science and ecological knowledge into land and resource management has led to more culturally grounded and ecologically sustainable outcomes. Yet, dominant research frameworks have been critiqued for extracting knowledge without recognizing its origins or embedded ethics. As Tuck and Yang ( 2012 :2) observed, "settler perspectives and worldviews get to count as knowledge and research and [are] repackaged as data and findings." Recognizing Indigenous and descendant communities as researchers and knowledge holders --whose expertise is grounded in generations of observation, care, and place-based practices- challenges conventional hierarchies of knowledge production and expands the range of valid perspectives and solutions (Whyte 2018; 2019) Moreover, in setting research agendas and funding priorities, Major American Research and Funding Organizations (MAJORs) play a central role in shaping convergence research landscape through policy, funding priorities, and strategic guidance (Baird 2017). These institutions have been instrumental in elevating convergence as a national research priority and in promoting interdisciplinary collaborations to address complex societal challenges. For example, NSF's Dear Colleague letters and National Research Council reports set standards by which convergence research is defined, evaluated, and funded. At the same time, MAJORs may unintentionally constrain innovation by prioritizing specific methodologies and disciplines at the expense of emerging or interdisciplinary areas. While these institutions have advanced convergence as a strategic priority, they also risk narrowing its scope. We posit that there is a critical need to expand the convergence research canon in ways that retain an integrity of difference --that is, preserving epistemic and methodological distinctiveness of diverse knowledge systems. The surveys were a useful tool that provided baseline data on roles, expectations, and affiliations, and the in-depth interviews allowed us to explore the experience of doing convergence research across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Our analyses revealed two central themes: time arcs and frictions. "Time arcs" refers to the uneven temporal commitments, funding cycles, and research rhythms of funders, university-based researchers, and community partners. “Frictions” related to differences in project goals and priorities. These tensions emerged from conflicting goals, timelines, methodologies, and expectations. Frictions were not merely logistical; they exposed deeper structural asymmetries tied to institutional and funding agency priorities. This analytic process linked coded themes to our research questions, identifying inflection points where definitions converged or diverged. For example, participants defined convergence as "bringing different disciplines together toward a common goal," but at the same time, emphasized challenges in negotiating language and disciplinary assumptions. One participant noted that "sometimes it's difficult...because the language isn't always the same." Others pointed to divergent timelines, highlighting mismatches in expectations and priorities. As one team member explained, "we don't have a specific timeline…. [Our priority] is to exercise our treaty rights, and we'll continue to do so." These responses suggest that even when team members agree on basic definitions, they may operate from fundamentally different logics – some aligned with institutional structures, others grounded in land, kinship, and responsibility. Team members emphasized the value of co-creating knowledge through collaborative partnerships that brought together different expertise, experiences, and perspectives. As one participant explained, "when you have a study it focuses on one thing, but you know if we can co-create something you may get different projects brought in, and different thoughts and views...there's not just scientific knowledge, there's other aspects that need to be involved to create the whole picture." This recognition emphasized bridging rather than merging knowledge systems. For example, one team member described uncertainty about their role and limited involvement due to time constraints: "I don't know my role on this project very well...I only got about a half hour of when we do have the calls." These reflections emphasized how goal alignment resulted in tensions, especially when schedules and decision-making processes were not fully synchronized. Across interviews, it became clear that while participants often struggled to define convergence in abstract terms, they were actively engaged in convergence practices through their daily work -- negotiating timelines, coordinating across institutions, applying different forms of expertise and knowledge, and managing a complex team structure. In this way, we came to define our convergence work not as a shared theoretical model, but as a set of relational practices, enacted through collaboration. Team members rarely reference the literature or formal definitions of convergence research (e.g., NSF 2016; NASEM 2019). Instead, their understandings were grounded in disciplinary or institutional identities, and their lived experience within the project. For many, convergence was framed pragmatically - as working across disciplinary boundaries to solve shared problems --rather than as a formal or codified research framework. This rupture or slippage between policy-level definitions and practice-based understandings suggests that, for many participants, convergence is not a prescriptive model, but an adaptive, negotiated process shaped by project roles and collaborations. Rather than a distinct paradigm, convergence was viewed as an extension of existing team science practices, negotiated through the practice of collaboration. What this means is that convergence, as practices, was constructed and redefined through ongoing project-based negotiation rather than anchored in shared theoretical or policy frameworks. Importantly, this finding highlights the ambiguity surrounding convergence as both a concept and research framework. Despite its prominence in funding calls and policy reports, participants approached convergence as a flexible, undefined construct. This conceptual ambiguity became part of the collaboration itself, requiring the team and team members to negotiate and reinterpret what convergence meant in the specific context of their shared work. The Tribal Landscape System (TLS) functioned as a coordinating device rather than a prescriptive model, letting team members align around shared goals, without a single definition. Team members referenced the TLS largely through their specific roles on the project, rather than as a unified or consistently defined SES framework. One participant described the TLS as contributing to understanding historical and treaty-rights. They imagined its use in helping to identify "the study areas that are chosen are important to the community.” Another framed their work with TLS as contributing to the technical components. For some, the TLS served to organize site-specific data collection or link ecological sampling to the community priorities (e.g., contaminant analysis or mapping). Others engaged with the TLS through stewardship, historical knowledge, or as a tool to map projects within the landscape. Few team members articulated the TLS as an integrated model. Instead, we found that engagement with the TLS was largely shaped by team members’ disciplinary expertise and project roles. A cross-cutting theme emerging from both scientific and community partners was the recognition that convergence research operates across multiple, layered scales of knowledge-building. Team members described how site-specific data collection (e.g., fish contaminant data) connects to broader questions of ecosystem health, community well-being, and intergenerational land use decisions: "the more data we have about the fish...the better we'll be able to understand the whole picture." Community partners likewise emphasized that research often proceeds in iterative phases, building over time as capacity and knowledge accumulate: "We can't always do one project at a time, so we have different phases of it. We kind of build on it." These insights informed our understanding of the specific ways that convergence research requires phased approaches across institutional and community timeframes. Our findings also suggest that team members’ experience aligned most closely with co-creating and bridging models and recognizing the value of maintaining epistemic distinctiveness across difference. This distinction is an important contribution of this research and provides insights for projects that involve Indigenous or community partners. We clearly know that respecting knowledge sovereignty and cultural frameworks is essential to ethical research practices. But this project clearly shows how convergence research is part of the ethical landscape – the two-eyed seeing approach described earlier. While these findings are grounded in the specific experiences of one project team, they do offer broader insights into how convergence is negotiated in practice. As a single case study, this analysis does not seek to generalize across all convergence projects but instead provides a situated account of convergence research within a long-term partnership. In the next section, we provide two key themes that emerged in the study: time arcs and frictions. 4.2. Time Arcs Our analyses revealed that a significant challenge in convergence research is the differing timelines --or 'time arcs'--among team members. We developed a schematic of overlapping "time arcs" to show how mismatched funding timelines among funders, researchers, and partners contributed to misalignment and shaped day-to-day project dynamics (Fig. 2 ). Time arcs emerged as a central theme in our research, highlighting how the interfaces between them can lead to 'slippage,' hindering progress, or create 'frictions' that either obstruct or facilitate convergence research. The following discussion examines the time arcs of funders, academics, and community members. Funding agency time arcs are notably the shortest and most constrained. They are subject to congressionally enacted budgets and vulnerable to administration changes, which can occur as frequently as every two years. State and local budgets face similar forces, further limiting the scope and duration of applied research funding. Segmented project budgets also constrain the time arc of convergence research programs. It is rare to have federally funded programs that allow for a project plan longer than five years. Except for established programs like the NSF DISES Program, which allows research teams to plan for future proposal deadlines, these compressed time arcs present challenges to university researchers and community partners. The time arc for university researchers in convergence research projects typically exceeds the funding duration. Investigators need time to adapt to and learn each other’s disciplinary language and build on each other’s strengths. Once the research team secures funding, they must recruit student researchers and develop skills necessary for transdisciplinary, community-engaged research. Early-career researchers face pressures to produce results and publish, while mid-career and senior researchers may have additional administrative or service duties. This can limit early-career researchers' capacity to engage fully in convergence projects, despite the potential for long-term research productivity. In addition, different disciplines vary significantly in their timelines. For example, in this project, determining fish contaminant concentrations required coordination of sampling, processing, and analysis that is still ongoing three years later, whereas interviews and analyses took 14 months. Compared to researchers and funders, community partners have longer time arcs than university researchers and funding agencies. Building trust demands significant time and mutual commitment, often extending well beyond the lifespan of a grant. Successful convergence research requires understanding and aligning with community priorities. Research must be conducted with, by, or as communities. These foundational relationships are crucial for sustained engagement and research success. While researchers are often accustomed to funding timeframes, these may be problematic for communities. Community organizations serve the needs of their communities by focusing on long-term impact and measuring success by the scale and lasting impact of their programs, which often exceed a single research funding cycle. Not all communities have identified priorities for “research,” and many lack the staff time to engage in proposal preparation. Convergence research, particularly when addressing complex or "wicked" problems, requires building long-term relationships to identify and address community-defined issues. Funding agencies expecting convergence often do not allow sufficient time for relationships to be built and for proposals to be created together. Time and timing conflicts between community and university research partners can hinder convergence research. Academic partners have research as a key employment component, whereas community partners often conduct research in addition to their regular priorities and duties. The limited capacity for these extra tasks can result in longer research timelines. Seasonal priorities for the work of community vs. academic partners may misalign opportunities for research collaboration. For example, community priorities often peak in summer. This timing may conflict with expectations of increased research activity during the summer for academic partners who have decreased instructional workload. University researchers face pressure to publish high-quality projects within a few years of the project's end. Data sovereignty issues may require prolonged discussions before publication, which is not supported in most tenure and promotion cases. These pressures are not conducive to building enduring relationships with community partners and may push academic researchers toward short-term solutions. Recognizing and accommodating these time constraints is crucial for maintaining productive partnerships. University and community partners can navigate differing time arcs by developing long-term goals achieved through multiple projects in progressive increments. In our experience, it was the involvement of team and community members committed to long-term engagements that enabled us to bridge these differences. By building on existing projects and relationships, and through feedback and direction from our community partners, we established a foundation for sustained collaboration. Our research has relied on long-term engagement across projects and produced lasting results. This process allows for various funding opportunities to support the project over a longer time supports objectives that are important to the community but not necessarily central to academic research. These practices – grounded in respect and long-term commitment – reflect the negotiated and relational nature of convergence research. 4.3. Frictions Transdisciplinary research often brings inherent tensions. These tensions can stem from different theoretical and methodological approaches, varied communication styles (e.g., disciplinary jargon, priorities), and different goals and expectations. Tension related to issues such as intellectual property, data sovereignty, resource allocations, and communication barriers are common in collaborative research. Initially, our team viewed tensions as challenges; however, as the project progressed, we recognized that they could also enable collaboration. Frictions can lead to traction. We drew on anthropologist Anna Tsing's metaphor of "friction" to help us to understand and reframe these tensions. Tsing’s ethnographic work on globalization highlights how “awkward, unequal, and unstable” encounters can produce both conflict and traction (Tsing 2005 :3). In this model, global processes gain shape and force through local interactions. Her metaphor of friction helped us to see tension as a potential catalyst. Frictions -- inherent tensions that arise when bridging knowledges–function much like physical friction: they provide traction that allow for new understandings and strengthened team cohesion. One friction emerged around language. In early drafts and conversations, our team referred to the region as “contaminated” or “impaired” landscape – terms our Tribal partners pushed back on. In response, we shifted toward relational framings. What can be done to mitigate the effects? Similarly, we no longer refer to fish solely in terms of contamination risk. Instead, we understand fish as culturally important. These tensions were productive in that they led to a deeper discussion about the risks of "damaged-centered research" and how to work to prioritize how to "reimagine how findings might be used by, for, and with communities" (Tuck 2009 :409). Our teams’ commitment to ethical spaces of engagement helped us to navigate tensions respectfully and productively, allowing for difference and offered an alternative to integration models that seek to resolve or ignore differences. 5. Discussion Convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System functioned as adaptive, practice-based frameworks that team members negotiated through their specific roles rather than through fixed theories or definitions. Team members operationalized convergence through the coordination of diverse expertise, experiences, and institutional roles, rather than through a codified definition. Similarly, engagement with the TLS was shaped by specific contributions - whether sampling, historical analysis, stewardship - rather than as a unified SES model. This operational flexibility reflects the central argument we advance here: convergence research is most effective when it allows epistemic distinctiveness rather than relying on uniform integration. In both cases, ambiguity became a productive feature, enabling the team to adapt to challenges, while staying grounded in community-identified priorities and ethical collaboration. By analyzing how team members defined and operationalized convergence, this study highlights the value of qualitative, reflexive approaches for expanding convergence theory and practice. This project was grounded in participatory, place-based convergence research situated within an ethical space of engagement that centers Indigenous voices, priorities, and knowledge systems (Ermine 2007 ). Built on long-term partnerships, the team bridged knowledge systems to address complex environmental and social challenges, while remaining accountable community priorities. Our findings suggest that managing time arcs and frictions depended on building relationships. Tools such as the Season of Research guided protocols that oriented researchers, mitigated tensions, and prioritized ethical engagement. Tensions become catalysts for learning and building flexibility into the research design that acknowledged timelines, knowledge systems, and shifting priorities created space for innovation. In this model, convergence research is not simply interdisciplinary – it is a collaborative process that maintains distinct epistemologies while working toward shared objectives. Expanding the convergence canon is critical to broadening cultural relevance, sustainability, and epistemic diversity. Our research sought to bridge knowledge systems through long-term partnerships aimed at addressing complex social and environmental issues. An expanded canon must therefore recognize community priorities, histories, and values. We suggest a reconceptualization and reorientation toward a long-standing body of convergent knowledge: Indigenous and descendant community knowledges and practices. Table 2 provides some examples. Table 2 Expanding the convergence canon: Indigenous and descendant community expertise Source Key Themes Relevance to Convergence Research Cajete ( 2000 ) Indigenous science, ecological balance, interdependent research Emphasizes balance and interconnectedness . Ermine ( 2007 ) Ethical engagement, Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, epistemological respect Highlights the need for spaces respecting both Indigenous and scientific methodologies. Wilson S ( 2008 ) Ceremonial integrity, relational accountability, Indigenous methodologies Advocates for research respecting Indigenous ceremonial practices, broadening knowledge generation methods and relational accountability. Kovach ( 2009 ) Indigenous research methodologies, Indigenous epistemologies, relational knowledge Prioritizes relationality and dialogue. Bartlett (2012) Two-Eyed Seeing, Indigenous and mainstream knowledges, science education and co-learning Combines Indigenous and sciences, emphasizing co-learning and mutual respect. Kimmerer ( 2015 ) Plant ecologies, environmental philosophy, weaving knowledge systems Advocates for weaving scientific methods with Indigenous storytelling . Hill and Coleman ( 2019 ) Two Row Wampum, Indigenous-university partnerships, dialogical relationships, mutual respect Promotes research partnerships that maintain sovereign , interdependent relationships, rooted in mutual respect . Reid (2021) Two-Eyed Seeing, Indigenous knowledge, fisheries management, knowledge coexistence Emphasizes knowledge coexistence and complementarity . The MAJORs, including NSF and NIH, play a central role in supporting and accelerating this work. Their investments make it possible to build and sustain interdisciplinary and transformative research, support institutional change, and expand the scope of research. Our project benefited from these investments. Our convergence research builds on existing efforts to demonstrate how recognizing difference does not detract, but instead deepens the research relevance and its capacity to address complex problems. This flexibility allowed the team to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic, evolving timelines, shifting priorities, and unforeseen challenges across the project’s life cycle, including student and staff turnover, data delays, and project shifts, while maintaining our focus on partner priorities. The same flexibility allowed us to begin with an SES model and, through multiple iterations, co-develop a framework that held meaning for all partners. 6. Conclusion This study examined how convergence research was conceptualized and practiced within an Indigenous-University partnership. Our findings suggest that convergence is not a static theoretical model but is instead a negotiated and situated practice. The project produced knowledge directly relevant to a specific socio-ecological challenge: stewardship in the context of tribal resource management. We argued that maintaining and integrity of difference – where researchers bridge knowledge systems – supports research grounded in relational accountability and community priorities. This approach expands the convergence canon and strengthens its practical relevance in interdisciplinary and community-centered contexts. There is much at stake. These stakes are particularly urgent given the current political climate in the United States where growing interventions in research funding and attacks on science undermine public trust and support. Convergence anchored in relational accountability and situated, community-based knowledge systems cannot be so easily dismantled. As Kovach ( 2009 ) reminds us, research is a political act: it reflects how knowledge is produced and who benefits. Research drives policy transformation that communities use to address land alienation and loss (Baird 2017, 2024). Bridging the “settler-Indigenous divide" requires prioritizing accountability and relational engagement (Tuck 2009 ). This is not about communities "educating" others but decentering Western knowledge and decolonizing research practices (Smith 1999 ). An epistemic approach rooted in Indigenous consent ensures that appropriate voices lead decision-making and are grounded in accountability. Expanding the convergence canon is therefore a necessary political and ethical response to protect inclusive, community-driven research in times of instability. Declarations Funding: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ANONYMOUS Author Contribution M Baird , V Gagnon, J Perlinger, N Urban, K Kamm wrote the main manuscript text. E. Ravindran, K. Kamm, and C. Ackley provided editing and revising.C. VanDam prepared figures.L. Juip and M. Baird undertook the research. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement We express our gratitude to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) for their guidance and support. We thank the participants who attended the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) Community Partners Meeting for their valuable feedback. We also thank Beth Hoy and the Great Lakes Research Center (GLRC) for their early support of this project. We acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Emily Shaw, as well as undergraduate students J. Messer and M. Klanderman. Dione Price (KBIC Natural Resources Department) provided helpful comments on an earlier draft. We also appreciate the constructive feedback on our research from participants in the 2024 session, "Shared Visions for Holistic and Indigenous-Led Stewardship in the Great Lakes," at the International Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR) conference. The authors assume full responsibility for any errors or omissions. References Redacted citation Barnhardt R, Kawagley AO (2005) Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. AEQ 36 (1): 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008 Bartlett C, Marshall M, Marshall A (2012) Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J. Environ. Sci, 2(4): 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1341 2-012-0086-8 Cajete G (2000) Native science: Natural laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe. Christopher S, Saba R, Lachapelle P, Jennings D, Colclough Y, Cooper C, Cummins C, Eggers MJ, FourStar K, Harris K, Kuntz SW, LaFromboise V, LaVeaux D, McDonald T, Read Bird J, Rink E, Webster L, (2011) Applying Indigenous community-based participatory research principles to partnership development in health disparities research. Fam Community Health. 34:246-255. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e318219606f Ermine, W (2007) The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous LJ, 6:193-203. Eyre HA, Berk M, Lavretsky H, Reynolds CF (eds) (2021) Convergence mental health: A transdisciplinary approach to innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. Fiore, S. M. (2008) Interdisciplinarity as Teamwork: How the Science of Teams can inform Team Science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251-277 Finn S, Colman G (2016) The pivotal role of the social sciences in environmental health sciences research, New Solut 26:389-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291116666485 Held M (2019) Decolonizing research paradigms in the context of settler colonialism: An unsettling, mutual, and collaborative effort. Int. J. Qual. Methods 18:1–16 https://doi.org/10.1177/16094 06918 821574 Hill RW, Coleman D (2019) The two row Wampum-Covenant chain tradition as a guide for Indigenous-university research partnerships. Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol. 19(5):339-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708618809138 Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A (1998) Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 19: 173-202. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173 King H. (2019) Land Back: A Yellowhead Institute Red Paper. Available from https://redpaper.yellowheadinstitute.org/ Kimmerer RW (2015) Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants, Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis Kimmerer RW (2022) Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action BioScience 52:432–438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 Korhonen-Kurki K, Bor S, Faehnle M, Kosenius AK, Kuusela S, Käyhkö J, Keskinen M (2022) Empirical insights into knowledge-weaving processes in strategic environmental research. J Environ. Pol. Plan 24(6): 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2022.2044296 Kovach M (2009) Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Kutz S, Tomaselli M (2019) “Two-eyed seeing” supports wildlife health. Science 364(6446):1135–1137. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.aau6170 Latulippe N (2015) Bridging parallel rows: Epistemic difference and relational accountability in cross-cultural research. Int. Indig. Policy J. 6(2):1–17. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2015.6.2.7 McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc. 19(2):30. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). Syst Rev. 4(1):1. http://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 NASEM National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) Fostering the culture of convergence in research: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25271 National Research Council (2014) Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://doi.org/10.17226/18722. National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC https://doi.org/10.17226/19007. National Science Foundation (2016) Learn about convergence research. Available via DIALOG. https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/research-types/learn-about-convergence-research Accessed 20 March 2022 Norman ES (2015) Governing transboundary waters: Canada, the United States and Indigenous communities. Routledge, New York. Oerther DB (2019) An example of convergence: Guatemala research on WaSH (GRoW). J Adv Nurs 75:2264–2266. http://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14144 Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.) Convergence. In OED.com. Retrieved June 30, 2024, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/convergence Pati D, Lorusso LN (2018) How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD 11(1):15-30. doi: 10.1177/1937586717747384. Peek, L, Tobin J, Adams R, Wu H, Mathews M (2020) A framework for convergence research in the hazards and disaster field: The natural hazards engineering research infrastructure CONVERGE facility. Front. Built Environ. 6:110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00110 Poole R (1972) Towards deep subjectivity. Harper & Row, London. Reid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F (2021) “Two-Eyed seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish 22:243261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516 Roco MC, Bainbridge WS. (2013a). The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: convergence of knowledge, technology, and society. J. Nanoparticle Res. 15(9):1-17. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1946-1 Roco MC, Bainbridge WS, Tonn B, Whitesides G (eds) (2013b) Converging knowledge, technology, and society: Beyond convergence of nano-bio-info-cognitive technologies. Springer, Berlin. Sharp PA, Langer R (2011) Promoting convergence in biomedical science. Science 333(6042):527. Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, New York. Specht A, Crowston, K (2022) Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes. PLoS One 17: 1–25. DOI: http://.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278043 Tornow JS, Kurose J, Lewis WJ, Tilbury DM, Easterling WE, Iacono CS, Keiser RL, Kinney A, Cook F. (2018) Dear colleague letter: Growing convergence research. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC., https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18058/nsf18058.jsp Tsing A (2005) Friction: An ethnology of global connection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Tuck E (2009) Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harv. Educ. Rev. 79: 409-427. Tuck E, Yang KW (2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1:1-­40. Wachtendorf T, Brown B, Holguin-Veras J (2013) Catastrophe characteristics and their impact on critical supply chains: problematizing materiel convergence and management following Hurricane Katrina. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg 10(2):497-520. http://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2012-0069 Wilcox A, Provencher JF, Dominique A, Alexander SM, Taylor JJ, Cooke SJ, Thomas PJ, and Johnson LR (2023) Braiding Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences in the Alberta oil sands region: A systematic review. FACETS 8:1. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0052 Wildcat M, McDonald M, Irlbacher-Fox S, Coulthard G (2014) Learning from the land: Indigenous land-based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 3(3):1-15. Wilson N (2019) On the road to convergence research. Biosci. 69(8): 587–593. http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz066. Wilson S (2008) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing, Black Point, Nova Scotia. Xiang WN (2013) Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110:1-3. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.006 Footnotes https://www.oed.com/dictionary/convergence_n?tl=true The canon references debate in the humanities in the 1990s, especially a critique of its exclusionary nature. Resnik (1990:221), referencing law, posed the question of the canon succinctly: "what (and who) is given voice; who is privileged, repeated, and invoked; who silenced, ignored, submerged, and marginalized." see, https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dynamics-integrated-socio-environmental-systems Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7151631","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Case Report","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":489947277,"identity":"6627a0ba-0eef-4f5e-a16f-783ef13089bc","order_by":0,"name":"Melissa Baird","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melissa","middleName":"","lastName":"Baird","suffix":""},{"id":489947278,"identity":"887f41a7-086b-420a-8d43-3bac2c82b024","order_by":1,"name":"Valoree Gagnon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Valoree","middleName":"","lastName":"Gagnon","suffix":""},{"id":489947279,"identity":"6c487249-e34f-40d1-9b5d-53d8587a5eab","order_by":2,"name":"Judith Perlinger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Judith","middleName":"","lastName":"Perlinger","suffix":""},{"id":489947280,"identity":"ea8857b0-7b68-4d29-8540-983212621eed","order_by":3,"name":"Larissa Juip","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Larissa","middleName":"","lastName":"Juip","suffix":""},{"id":489947281,"identity":"ce890ada-5de2-4f77-8f85-ce61f852e379","order_by":4,"name":"Noel Urban","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Noel","middleName":"","lastName":"Urban","suffix":""},{"id":489947282,"identity":"b35fde39-33ea-4812-90ef-2bd20da4cae6","order_by":5,"name":"Kelly Kamm","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kelly","middleName":"","lastName":"Kamm","suffix":""},{"id":489947283,"identity":"bda8d567-0417-4486-8012-7cd38863f6f7","order_by":6,"name":"Evelyn Ravindran","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Keweenaw Bay Indian Community","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Evelyn","middleName":"","lastName":"Ravindran","suffix":""},{"id":489947284,"identity":"b2706b74-ea31-4143-9702-b97d501f1395","order_by":7,"name":"Caren Ackley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Great Lakes Indian Fish \u0026 Wildlife Commission","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Caren","middleName":"","lastName":"Ackley","suffix":""},{"id":489947285,"identity":"10bc8655-354e-4211-a55b-a74a52b29cbe","order_by":8,"name":"Cassangra Reed-VanDam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Michigan Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cassangra","middleName":"","lastName":"Reed-VanDam","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-17 18:23:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7151631/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7151631/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87899436,"identity":"981abe66-aa7a-4192-91f9-1b8878667696","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:03:09","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of Great Lakes Region and Study Area (circled), showing American Indian and First Nation reservations in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau) and Canada (Natural Resources Canada, Canada Land Surveys) (red polygons); treaty boundaries in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and within Canada (colored areas)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7151631/v1/6afcaf240708bda5feef3e41.jpg"},{"id":87899438,"identity":"c1c6b250-e478-4867-a78a-9818173f004d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:03:10","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":158182,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic representation of time arcs for funders (green), university researchers (yellow-brown) and community partners (blue). These arcs highlight institutional misalignments that could create frictions in convergence research.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7151631/v1/cea5cf313bb3e0f48d8522c5.jpg"},{"id":87902984,"identity":"dc34f826-be00-40a9-a2b9-4a4369e81a9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:27:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":923495,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7151631/v1/a520c711-6095-46c0-8b1f-2f231939737a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Bridging Knowledge Systems in Convergence Research: Community-Centered and Place-Based Approaches in Lake Superior's Keweenaw Bay","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocio-ecological practice research (SEPR) seeks to address complex, real-world problems. Convergence research has emerged as one such model and brings together diverse disciplines, knowledge systems, and methods to address complex societal challenges. The National Academies (2014) defines convergence as the integration of ideas and technologies to create a \"common set of concepts and metrics and a common understanding about goals.\u0026rdquo; (NRC 2014, pp. 20\u0026ndash;21). The term also refers to the process of moving toward a unified point (Specht and Crowston \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wilson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e Convergence research serves as a conceptual framework, a value orientation, and a guiding theory. It is problem-driven, team-based, and focused on the integration of knowledge (Roco et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013b\u003c/span\u003e; NSF 2019). It aims to accelerate research by incorporating diverse perspectives, expertise, knowledge systems, methods, tools, and analytical approaches (NRC 2014; NSF 2016; Sharp and Langer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The National Science Foundation's (NSF) inclusion of \"Growing Convergence Research\" as one of its 10 Big Ideas aimed to stimulate innovation and transformative solutions (NSF 2018; see also National Research Council \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). While convergence may be conceptualized differently by governmental agencies, researchers, international science bodies, industry partners, and community organizations, it is broadly understood as a pathway for knowledge generation and problem-solving (Eyre et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; National Research Council \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Convergence teams are intentionally structured to broaden participation and build partnerships across difference. These teams may include scientists, community members, and representatives from industry or non-profits who build capacity, share expertise, and work toward solving complex research problems. The promise of convergence research lies in its potential to tackle multi-scalar problems that no single discipline or sector can resolve alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe core principles of convergence research have a long history and are embedded in a variety of research traditions (see e.g., Israel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, pp.175). Team science, for example, is a convergent approach that engages multiple investigators on projects with shared goals (Fiore \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; NRC 2015). The science of team science (SciTS) supports translational collaboration across the research enterprise (Fiore \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, community-based participatory projects also have exemplified convergence approaches by collaborating with communities on research largely driven by community-defined needs (e.g., Finn and Collman 2016). While team science and community-based participatory research have long engaged communities and researchers, as well as multiple knowledge systems, recent efforts to formalize convergence research have codified collaborations into models that prioritize integration (Roco et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013b\u003c/span\u003e; NSF 2019). These formalizations can risk undermining epistemic plurality and relational accountability. Moreover, community-defined priorities may be deprioritized, especially when they do not align with institutional objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs we engaged in convergence research, our team identified a conundrum in the emphasis on \u0026lsquo;deep integration\u0026rsquo; as a core tenet. While the grant solicitation encouraged bringing together a diverse team, the recommended \u0026ldquo;integrative\u0026rdquo; approach lends itself to the assimilation of knowledge. We argue that practicing convergence research \u003cem\u003edoes not require \u0026lsquo;deep integration,\u0026rsquo; but instead calls for a recognition of the integrity of diverse approaches and epistemologies.\u003c/em\u003e Expanding the convergence canon -- the prevailing assumptions, models, and approaches used to define convergence -- is essential for supporting community-centered, participatory research. Bridging knowledge systems, rather than integrating them, enables collaborative research that honors boundaries and is better suited to address complex or wicked problems, particularly in contexts where cultural and ecological stakes are high (Xiang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This distinction is especially important given the significant influence of major American research and funding organizations (MAJORs) such as the National Academy of Sciences or National Science Foundation, whose experts and funding mechanisms shape research agendas and priorities.\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article presents data and insights from our qualitative study on convergence research. We sought to understand how researchers and multidisciplinary teams work to \"integrate\" research across disciplinary and cultural boundaries. Our goal was to advance both theoretical understandings and provide practical insights on convergence research undertaken within an Indigenous-university partnership (Hill and Coleman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In this article, we first describe the project\u0026rsquo;s context, including team history, guiding principles, and the development of the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) conceptual model. We then describe the qualitative study, including the systematic literature review, surveys, and interviews. Finally, we present our analyses and their implications for convergence research practice, particularly regarding timelines, epistemological frictions, and the importance of maintaining an \u003cem\u003eintegrity of difference\u003c/em\u003e in community-centered research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Context and Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Researcher Positionality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur team includes tribal, academic, and community-based researchers working across multiple institutions. We situate our claims within larger socio-political and historical contexts and are committed to learning about the histories and contemporary issues of place that foster policies and practices of care and reciprocity. This article is a collaborative effort by nine researchers from three institutions within an Indigenous-university partnership. Information on the author positionality can be found at [insert project website].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Project Context and Location\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research project is situated within the ancestral and contemporary homelands of the TRIBAL PARTNER, a federally recognized Ojibwa tribe (1936) who live on the shores of Ojibwe Gichigami (\u0026ldquo;Ojibwa\u0026rsquo;s Great Sea,\u0026rdquo; Lake Superior) in present-day Upper Michigan (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). TRIBAL PARTNER s one of eleven member tribes of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), a government partner and contributor to our project team. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents a map of the Great Lakes Region and study area.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe project was designed to prioritize stewardship and resource management and provide timely, relevant, and responsive information to our tribal partners who are working to steward and restore cultural and ecosystem health. It was developed to support the TRIBAL PARTNER -- a subsistence fishing community\u0026ndash; by addressing their concerns related to toxic contamination and climate-related changes that affect the health of fish populations as well as the broader community. Fish hold significant cultural value and are essential sources of protein, Omega-3 and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6 fatty acids, and other nutrients. However, fish have also become sources of toxic chemicals to humans. These toxic chemicals disrupt physical and socio-cultural relationships within the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) (Gagnon et al. 2018; Gagnon 2015; Gagnon 2016; Norman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research builds on a 15-year collaboration between researchers at UNIVERSITY A and TRIBAL PARTNER, which began in 2010. That year, ANONYMOUS and ANONYMOUS began a partnership to investigate how contamination and resource impairments impact socio-ecological systems, focusing on the importance of harvesting fish to tribal lifeways. In 2013, ANONYMOUS on began an NSF-funded Dynamics of Coupled Human-Natural Systems Program project (2013\u0026ndash;2018), a predecessor to the Dynamics of Integrated Socio-Environmental Systems (DISES) Program. This project included over thirty investigators from four academic institutions, with ANONYMOUS as a primary partner and ten additional partnering organizations. The team examined global-to-regional scale transport and delivery of atmosphere-surface exchangeable pollutants, or \u0026ldquo;ASEPs'' to the Laurentian Great Lakes (Perlinger et al. 2016) and studied the effects of international and national policies on those processes (Perlinger et al. 2018). In 2017, the current team members began pursuing additional funding to expand this work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver the last fifteen years, ANONYMOUS researchers have expanded these collaborations to understand and mitigate the physical, chemical, and biological factors that cause concentrations of chemicals in fish tissue to vary by up to two orders of magnitude in these lakes. Our models bring in these factors to understand ecological relationships, particularly in practices like fish harvesting, stocking, and land use management. Project activities included mapping contamination levels, exploring risk mitigation strategies, and supporting sustainable human-environment relationships (ANONYMOUS. The current project extends this work by incorporating historical and political contexts\u0026ndash;particularly treaty histories and land use\u0026ndash;into socio-ecological models. These histories are essential to understanding present-day ecological dynamics and for planning a sustainable future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Community Engaged Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research project was designed to center community priorities. The team focused on accountability and relational engagement, guided by TRIBAL PARTNER identified needs. Our research team was guided by four principles: 1) redistributing power in the research process; 2) respecting cultural knowledge and data sovereignty; 3) establishing protocols for ethical considerations; and 4) partnering for long-term sustained engagement (Christopher et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Israel et al.1998). These principles were agreed upon during the research design to ensure that research objectives, methods, and ethical protocols were aligned to ensure to conduct our research responsibly and with sensitivity (see, e.g., Barnhardt and Kawagley \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the start of the project, TRIBAL PARTNER members and some members of the research team created a \u0026ldquo;Seasons of Research\u0026rdquo; guide to facilitate ethically grounded research with/by/as TRIBAL PARTNER (Shaw et al. 2022). The guide provides best practices to promote reciprocity, responsibility, and respect in research; relationship building is the first \"season of research.\" One critical element of building relationships we have found is consent. King (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e:9) identifies four distinct and necessary elements of Indigenous consent: restorative, epistemic, reciprocal, and legitimate (King \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e:9). Epistemic consent, rooted in Indigenous knowledge, is central to understanding Indigenous relationships and obligations to land and place. In this model, consent is not about justice and rights but is a necessary foundation for decision-making and ethical engagement. As King (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e:64) argues, the \"long-term stewardship of the land allows Indigenous people to constantly reassess, plan, and adapt,\" in contrast to the \"short-term view of Western environmental policies and practices.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe team also drew on Indigenous scholarship and frameworks to define shared research practices. We sought to bridge knowledge and expertise in our community-engaged research partnerships (Latulippe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), building on Cree scholar Willie Ermine's (2007:194) \u0026ldquo;ethical space of engagement.\u0026rdquo; Ermine describes this space as one \"between the Indigenous and Western thought worlds. The space is initially conceptualized by the unwavering construction of difference and diversity between human communities. These differences highlight uniqueness, as each entity is shaped from distinct histories, knowledge traditions, philosophies, and socio-political realities. Rather than erasing differences, this space treats them as foundational (see also Poole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e. Ermine's ethical space builds the context for bridging knowledges. This has been described as \u0026lsquo;weaving\u0026rsquo; (Kimmerer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026lsquo;braiding\u0026rsquo; (Wilcox et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and \u0026lsquo;co-production\u0026rsquo; (Korhonen-Kurki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). We conceptualize this space as a bridge and shared space of practice. Team members bring distinct intellects and \u0026lsquo;toolboxes\u0026rsquo; (e.g., skills, approaches, worldviews) and sustain the project by developing shared expectations and vocabularies grounded in shared ethics. Bridging intellectual and ethical spaces rebalance relationships between researchers and communities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBridging knowledges is not a matter of consensus, but of collaboration and mutual respect. This practice maintains the integrity of diverse ways of knowing. \u003cem\u003eWestern sciences\u003c/em\u003e prioritize empirical observation and validation (\"seeing is believing\u0026rdquo;). \u003cem\u003eIndigenous sciences\u003c/em\u003e emphasize the gift of \u0026ldquo;listening.\u0026rdquo; Grounded in relational, emotional intellect and rooted in place-based experiences, knowledge through listening is gained across multiple generations, often inclusive of sensory insights well beyond human audio capacities. Bridging serves as \u003cem\u003epathways\u003c/em\u003e for developing shared intentions and actions. As such, bridging is a place for direct \u003cem\u003einteractions\u003c/em\u003e. The emphasis is on \u003cem\u003ecooperation\u003c/em\u003e, recognizing differences are \u003cem\u003ecomplementary\u003c/em\u003e strengths that enhance collective outcomes. Bridging maintains the \u003cem\u003eintegrities\u003c/em\u003e of diverse ways of knowing as a grounded and embodied \u003cem\u003epractice\u003c/em\u003e. For example, project team members join with TRIBAL PARTNER members at community events such as Garden for Heart at the community garden and Water Walks. Additional participatory research practices include participation in pow-wows, restoration of mining-impacted landscapes, tribal council meetings, partner meetings, wild rice camp, and presenting research at workshops, symposia, and conferences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Conceptual Framework: The Tribal Landscape System (TLS)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Tribal Landscape System (TLS) was developed as both a conceptual model and an analytic to understand a dynamic, place-based socio-ecological system. The TLS was designed to provide a way to analyze system processes and dynamics that link ecological change with community well-being. As described by the research team, the TLS is a \"dynamic and integrated socio-ecological system (SES) directly impacted by anthropogenic toxic contamination and climate-related changes.\" It was designed to bridge ecological and social sciences with Indigenous ways of knowing, by promoting \"two-eyed\" seeing (Bartlett et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kutz and Tomaselli \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; McGinnis and Ostrom \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Reid et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike traditional SES models that couple two discrete systems, the TLS emphasizes interdependent interactions shaped by atmospheric contaminant deposition and climate-related changes.\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe TLS centers Indigenous knowledge and place-based practices as foundational to both ecological knowledge and practices, and how these work within a framework of reciprocal social relations and ethical practices. Ecological components of the TLS include watersheds and food webs, while the social components include the TRIBAL PARTNER institutions, governance systems, cultural practices, histories, and relationships. These knowledge systems incorporate kinship structures, cultural and stewardship practices, and culturally-important foods. The model foregrounds interdependence and connectivity -- emphasizing feedback mechanisms and relationships. Integration --now reframed as bridging\u0026ndash; within the TLS occurs on two levels. The first level concerns interactions between abiotic and biotic processes. For example, we examined how abiotic processes such as runoff inputs, air-water exchange, contamination sequestration in sediments, and attributes (e.g., lake and watershed size) interact with biotic components such as food webs. These processes affect resource quality through mechanisms such as trophic magnification of contaminants. Our research sought to understand how these interactions connect to socio-cultural practices\u0026ndash;particularly community fish harvesting and stocking and how they influence ecosystem attributes (e.g., species and size structure of fish populations, contaminant concentrations in fish) and the impacts for human health and practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second level of the TLS model accounts for histories, governance, and community relations. We recognized that treaties and legal or administrative relationships shape how people care for and manage their lands (e.g., Held \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wildcat et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, relationships and stewardship responsibilities are maintained through practice. Governance mediates which landscapes are used for harvesting fish and gathering foods, just as much as the physical processes shape ecological outcomes. We hypothesized that, just as abiotic factors affect ecological dynamics, governance and history structure human-land relationships and practices. As we are finding, outcomes of these interactions and processes vary widely and can both enhance and pose risks to both human community health and well-being, as well as more-than-human relationships. For example, our characterization of fish (e.g., walleye and lake trout) in the TLS accounts for their role in the food web, their significance to tribal fisheries, and their role as cultural keystone species.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the TLS \u003cem\u003eas\u003c/em\u003e a socio-ecological system (SES) framework offers several benefits. It provides a language and conceptual model to discuss insights into complex and dynamic relationships. As we are finding, changes in one component - e.g., contamination or degraded ecosystems - can significantly influence and affect the system. While the TLS originally served as a practical tool to facilitate dialogue and feedback, and was used to inform project decisions, it also serves as a model that reorients management approaches toward relational obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur methods aimed to analyze how convergence research is conceptualized, negotiated, and practiced by team members over time. We used a qualitative research design to examine how project team members conceptualized and practiced convergence research and understood the Tribal Landscape System (TLS). Methods included a literature review, two surveys, participant observation, and semi-structured interviews. This approach allowed us to understand how team members\u0026rsquo; understandings evolved through collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess how convergence was conceptualized within the research team, designed a three-part qualitative research design that included a systematic literature review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews. This design aimed to evaluate how team members understood both convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System (TLS). Social scientists on the team developed a standardized protocol for all components of the study. Baird led the protocol, following PRISMA guidelines to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency (Moher et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Project findings informed a series of structured writing and dialogue workshops with the project leadership team during 2023\u0026ndash;2024. We began with a systematic literature review to assess the current state of knowledge and best practices. These data were used to inform our qualitative methods (i.e., surveys and semi-structured interviews). We asked: How do team members understand convergence research or the Tribal Landscape System. This question allowed us to analyze how definitions and assumptions shaped the team's research practices, collaborations, and decision-making, as well as knowledge production.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Systematic Literature Review\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe systematically collected and evaluated literature by searching multiple academic databases -- Google Scholar, Web of Science, and JSTOR - using predefined search terms and Boolean operators (Pati 2008). Search strings included combinations such as (\"convergence research\" OR \"convergence science\") AND (\"NSF\" OR \"transdisciplinary\" OR \"interdisciplinary\"), and limited results to peer-reviewed articles published in English and restricted studies to those conducted within North America. We then categorized the results into pre-2013 and post-2013 publications, focusing our analysis on 30 articles published after 2013 that explicitly addressed convergence research methods that aligned with NSF's convergence criteria. We used qualitative data analysis tool (MaxQDA) to conduct inductive open-coding and to analyze and annotate. We identified key definitions, thematic trends, and gaps and the methods and theories, noting how authors defined convergence research (or did not) (Auerbach and Silverstein 2003). These results informed both an internal synthesis of current convergence research practices and the development of a working conceptual model for the social science team and provided a context for the design of the survey. While convergence literature provides widely-cited definitions emphasizing integration, interdisciplinarity, and problem-orientation, as we describe later these frameworks are often interpreted, adapted, or negotiated in practice by team members during collaborative work. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents definitions and core themes from a selection of sources. Note that some sources (e.g., Tornow et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Oerther \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) adopt existing definitions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey definitions and core themes of convergence literature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDefinition of convergence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCore themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWachtendorf et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.497)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The massive movement of personnel, information and material to a disaster site\u0026hellip;. known as convergence.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisaster response; resource and personnel management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRoco and Bainbridge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013a\u003c/span\u003e, p.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Convergence of knowledge and technology for the benefit of society (CKTS)\u0026hellip;defined as the escalating and transformative interactions among seemingly different disciplines, technologies, communities, and domains of human activity to achieve mutual compatibility, synergism, and integration\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocietal benefit; integration of disciplines; synergies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational Research Council (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, p.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Convergence\u0026hellip;cuts across disciplinary boundaries. It integrates knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking .... a comprehensive synthetic framework for tackling scientific and societal challenges that exist at the interfaces of multiple fields.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCross-disciplinary integration; problem-solving; comprehensive frameworks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational Science Foundation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"a means of solving vexing research problems\u0026hellip;driven by a specific and compelling problem...deep integration across disciplines.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProblem-driven, deep interdisciplinary integration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTornow et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdopts NSF definition of convergence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChallenge-driven; disciplinary integration; form new paradigms\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOerther (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, p.2265)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdopts NSF definition of convergence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProblem focus; transdisciplinary collaboration; addressing scientific and social needs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019, p.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Emphasizing an integration of knowledge and ways of thinking to tackle complex challenges and achieve new and innovative solutions.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge integration; innovation; tackling complex challenges\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeek (2020, p.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"An approach to knowledge production and action that involves diverse teams working together in novel ways \u0026ndash; transcending disciplinary and organizational boundaries \u0026ndash; to address vexing social, economic, environmental, and technical challenges.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeam collaboration; addressing social and technological challenges; promoting well-being\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsights from the literature review informed, in part, the design of our survey instrument. We developed a working conceptual definition of convergence to guide our internal discussions \u0026ndash; and to serve as a point of comparison with participant responses. Our working definition was that convergence research is \u0026ldquo;a problem-driven approach that brings together diverse disciplines, knowledge systems, and methods to collaboratively address complex societal challenges.\u0026rdquo; The Tribal Landscape System was defined in our grant submission and preceded data collection, serving as a reference point for assessing how team members interpreted, aligned, diverged, or expanded existing definitions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Surveys and Interviews\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo capture baseline perceptions of the TLS among project team members, we conducted an online survey that included both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Participants were asked about their work settings, roles, familiarity with the TLS, definitions of convergence, the value of the Indigenous-University partnership, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on team collaboration and project progress. Sample questions included: \"How well do you think the tribal landscape system includes your contributions to the research project?\" and \"How do you define convergence research in your work?\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants represented diverse institutional affiliations: 44% reported university or academic appointments, 44% identified as tribal government or community members, and 11% were affiliated with federal agencies. Most respondents (78%) indicated that their work contributions were reflected in the TLS framework; 22% expressed uncertainty or disagreement about whether their work fit within the TLS model. When asked to describe their understanding of the TLS, respondents identified both ecological and cultural components, citing fish contaminant levels, treaty rights, governance, environmental policy decisions, and cultural well-being. While the TLS served as a shared reference point, responses tended to reflect discipline-specific emphases based on project roles. Several members noted that the TLS framework did not fully capture broader political or economic factors affecting the Tribal socio-ecological system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked to define convergence, most respondents framed it as a collaborative problem-solving approach. Definitions included \"bringing together people and knowledge to solve a problem\" and \"a community problem-driven approach where TEK and western science are treated as separate and equal.\" Interestingly, no respondents referenced formal convergence frameworks such as those articulated by NSF (2016) or NASEM (2019). Instead, participants described convergence in practical, team-based terms rooted in the team\u0026rsquo;s work. These early patterns foreshadowed the role-based and negotiated understandings of convergence that would emerge more explicitly in the subsequent interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants indicated that the Indigenous-University partnership provided meaningful opportunities for collaboration and co-learning. Several emphasized that the partnership allowed Indigenous knowledge to inform decision-making processes affecting the Tribal landscape. Finally, 78% reported that COVID-19 disrupted research timelines, travel, and engagement, while 22% indicated limited or no impacts. The survey revealed that the TLS and convergence were engaged as flexible, role-specific frameworks developed through practice rather than as fixed theoretical models. These findings informed the interview protocols used in the qualitative phase.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the survey, we conducted eight semi-structured interviews lasting 40\u0026ndash;60 minutes each to gain deeper understanding into how team members operationalized \"convergence research\" and their understanding of the TLS model (Bateson 1972; Goffman 1974). The semi-structured interview protocol was designed to elicit participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives on convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System (TLS). The protocol covered five topic areas: (1) roles and responsibilities within the project; (2) individual definitions and operationalizations of convergence research; (3) perspectives of the TLS model (4) experiences with university-tribal-community partnerships, including ethical considerations and community protections; and (5) project-level issues such as goal alignment, timelines, and data sovereignty. The interviews included visual prompts, including the TLS model diagram, were used to support discussion. The protocol incorporated both open-ended questions and targeted probes to ensure consistency across interviews while allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate based on their roles and experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe selected a semi-structured format to compare across participant experiences. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative analysis techniques, in combination with prior survey data and our project documentation (e.g., reports and shared working documents). Using open coding, we identified recurring themes and grouped these into broad analytic categories and refined in team meetings. In 2022, we designed and administered a follow-up survey to collect longitudinal data and assess changes in team members' understandings of convergence and the TLS over time. Insights from the project qualitative data were analyzed and used to inform team workshops and will be described in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second survey, administered in 2022 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7), allowed us to assess how participant understandings of convergence and the TLS evolved over the course of the project. Compared to the baseline survey, respondents in the second survey reported slightly higher familiarity with convergence research: 57% strongly agreed they were familiar with the term. Responses to TLS questions in the second survey remained largely consistent with the baseline findings. Most participants agreed that the TLS framework captured their work, though several continued to emphasize that the model may not fully capture external sociopolitical or economic factors influencing the Tribal landscape. The TLS continued to be described as both ecological and cultural, with respondents highlighting elements such as fish contamination, treaty rights, cultural well-being, and governance \u0026mdash; clearly reiterating themes from the previous survey and interviews. Many again stressed the importance of linking environmental sampling with community health, governance, and intergenerational cultural practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked about challenges in convergence research, the second survey reinforced concerns already identified in interviews and the baseline survey: disciplinary barriers (identified by 86% of respondents), goal alignment (identified by 86%), data sovereignty (29%), and community protections (43%). Communication, shared authorship, and learning each other\u0026rsquo;s disciplinary languages were also flagged as sources of tension. Finally, as in the first survey, respondents strongly agreed that the University-Indigenous partnership contributed to positive community outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimitations include the restriction of the literature review to post-2013 publications from North America, which may have excluded relevant perspectives from earlier or international work. The small sample size and limited number and diversity of survey and interview participants could affect the generalizability of our findings. Potential biases in coding and theme development may have influenced our analyses. Despite these limitations, this study did reveal some key challenges and opportunities in practicing convergence research across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Our findings reflect how convergence was practiced on the ground \u0026ndash;through negotiation\u0026mdash;rather than applied as a static framework. The following section presents core findings and how interdisciplinary teams navigate complexity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section reports the study\u0026rsquo;s main findings, followed by a discussion of two cross-cutting themes \u0026ndash; time arcs and frictions \u0026ndash; that shaped how team members conceptualized and practiced convergence research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Overview of Key Findings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found that in the literature, convergence research is most commonly applied in disaster management, risk analysis, health, engineering and technology. This trend reflects both the urgency and complexity of these domains, involving high-stakes problems requiring cross-disciplinary coordination, rapid response, and scaffolded expertise. These studies employ mixed methods - for example, quantitative modeling, geospatial analysis, to address so-called \"wicked problems.\" Disciplines such as sociology and public policy are represented, though less frequently. Fields such as urban planning and education remain less prominent. We attribute this pattern to funding structures that prioritize \"traditional\" STEM fields. While funders and researchers recognize the value of social science perspectives, structural and institutional barriers continue to limit methodological diversity, even as the convergence canon shifts (Peek et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe literature review also revealed that the discourse on convergence research consistently emphasized integration. However, we argue that this emphasis can unknowingly privilege academic or scientific knowledge as the default. This framing could risk marginalizing forms of expertise rooted in place or community. Knowledge is dynamic, situated, and culturally produced; privileging \"integration\" over epistemic plurality may limit the scope and transformative impact of convergence research (NRC 2015). As discussed, orientations that prioritize weaving or bridging knowledges centers local and place-based knowledges (see Reid et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These orientations also offer a necessary means of confronting the colonial legacies embedded in research practices and institutions (Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). For example, incorporating Indigenous science and ecological knowledge into land and resource management has led to more culturally grounded and ecologically sustainable outcomes. Yet, dominant research frameworks have been critiqued for extracting knowledge without recognizing its origins or embedded ethics. As Tuck and Yang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e:2) observed, \"settler perspectives and worldviews get to count as knowledge and research and [are] repackaged as data and findings.\" Recognizing Indigenous and descendant communities \u003cem\u003eas\u003c/em\u003e researchers and knowledge holders --whose expertise is grounded in generations of observation, care, and place-based practices- challenges conventional hierarchies of knowledge production and expands the range of valid perspectives and solutions (Whyte 2018; 2019)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, in setting research agendas and funding priorities, Major American Research and Funding Organizations (MAJORs) play a central role in shaping convergence research landscape through policy, funding priorities, and strategic guidance (Baird 2017). These institutions have been instrumental in elevating convergence as a national research priority and in promoting interdisciplinary collaborations to address complex societal challenges. For example, NSF's \u003cem\u003eDear Colleague\u003c/em\u003e letters and National Research Council reports set standards by which convergence research is defined, evaluated, and funded. At the same time, MAJORs may unintentionally constrain innovation by prioritizing specific methodologies and disciplines at the expense of emerging or interdisciplinary areas. While these institutions have advanced convergence as a strategic priority, they also risk narrowing its scope. We posit that there is a critical need to \u003cem\u003eexpand the convergence research\u003c/em\u003e canon in ways that retain an integrity of difference --that is, preserving epistemic and methodological distinctiveness of diverse knowledge systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe surveys were a useful tool that provided baseline data on roles, expectations, and affiliations, and the in-depth interviews allowed us to explore the experience of doing convergence research across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Our analyses revealed two central themes: time arcs and frictions. \"Time arcs\" refers to the uneven temporal commitments, funding cycles, and research rhythms of funders, university-based researchers, and community partners. \u0026ldquo;Frictions\u0026rdquo; related to differences in project goals and priorities. These tensions emerged from conflicting goals, timelines, methodologies, and expectations. Frictions were not merely logistical; they exposed deeper structural asymmetries tied to institutional and funding agency priorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis analytic process linked coded themes to our research questions, identifying inflection points where definitions converged or diverged. For example, participants defined convergence as \"bringing different disciplines together toward a common goal,\" but at the same time, emphasized challenges in negotiating language and disciplinary assumptions. One participant noted that \"sometimes it's difficult...because the language isn't always the same.\" Others pointed to divergent timelines, highlighting mismatches in expectations and priorities. As one team member explained, \"we don't have a specific timeline\u0026hellip;. [Our priority] is to exercise our treaty rights, and we'll continue to do so.\" These responses suggest that even when team members agree on basic definitions, they may operate from fundamentally different logics \u0026ndash; some aligned with institutional structures, others grounded in land, kinship, and responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeam members emphasized the value of co-creating knowledge through collaborative partnerships that brought together different expertise, experiences, and perspectives. As one participant explained, \"when you have a study it focuses on one thing, but you know if we can co-create something you may get different projects brought in, and different thoughts and views...there's not just scientific knowledge, there's other aspects that need to be involved to create the whole picture.\" This recognition emphasized bridging rather than merging knowledge systems. For example, one team member described uncertainty about their role and limited involvement due to time constraints: \"I don't know my role on this project very well...I only got about a half hour of when we do have the calls.\" These reflections emphasized how goal alignment resulted in tensions, especially when schedules and decision-making processes were not fully synchronized. Across interviews, it became clear that while participants often struggled to define convergence in abstract terms, they were actively engaged in convergence practices through their daily work -- negotiating timelines, coordinating across institutions, applying different forms of expertise and knowledge, and managing a complex team structure. In this way, we came to define our convergence work not as a shared theoretical model, but as a set of relational practices, enacted through collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeam members rarely reference the literature or formal definitions of convergence research (e.g., NSF 2016; NASEM 2019). Instead, their understandings were grounded in disciplinary or institutional identities, and their lived experience within the project. For many, convergence was framed pragmatically - as working across disciplinary boundaries to solve shared problems --rather than as a formal or codified research framework. This rupture or slippage between policy-level definitions and practice-based understandings suggests that, for many participants, convergence is not a prescriptive model, but an adaptive, negotiated process shaped by project roles and collaborations. Rather than a distinct paradigm, convergence was viewed as an extension of existing team science practices, negotiated through the practice of collaboration. What this means is that convergence, as practices, was constructed and redefined through ongoing project-based negotiation rather than anchored in shared theoretical or policy frameworks. Importantly, this finding highlights the ambiguity surrounding convergence as both a concept and research framework. Despite its prominence in funding calls and policy reports, participants approached convergence as a flexible, undefined construct. This conceptual ambiguity became part of the collaboration itself, requiring the team and team members to negotiate and reinterpret what convergence meant in the specific context of their shared work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Tribal Landscape System (TLS) functioned as a coordinating device rather than a prescriptive model, letting team members align around shared goals, without a single definition. Team members referenced the TLS largely through their specific roles on the project, rather than as a unified or consistently defined SES framework. One participant described the TLS as contributing to understanding historical and treaty-rights. They imagined its use in helping to identify \"the study areas that are chosen are important to the community.\u0026rdquo; Another framed their work with TLS as contributing to the technical components. For some, the TLS served to organize site-specific data collection or link ecological sampling to the community priorities (e.g., contaminant analysis or mapping). Others engaged with the TLS through stewardship, historical knowledge, or as a tool to map projects within the landscape. Few team members articulated the TLS as an integrated model. Instead, we found that engagement with the TLS was largely shaped by team members\u0026rsquo; disciplinary expertise and project roles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA cross-cutting theme emerging from both scientific and community partners was the recognition that convergence research operates across multiple, layered scales of knowledge-building. Team members described how site-specific data collection (e.g., fish contaminant data) connects to broader questions of ecosystem health, community well-being, and intergenerational land use decisions: \"the more data we have about the fish...the better we'll be able to understand the whole picture.\" Community partners likewise emphasized that research often proceeds in iterative phases, building over time as capacity and knowledge accumulate: \"We can't always do one project at a time, so we have different phases of it. We kind of build on it.\" These insights informed our understanding of the specific ways that convergence research requires phased approaches across institutional and community timeframes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings also suggest that team members\u0026rsquo; experience aligned most closely with co-creating and bridging models and recognizing the value of maintaining epistemic distinctiveness across difference. This distinction is an important contribution of this research and provides insights for projects that involve Indigenous or community partners. We clearly know that respecting knowledge sovereignty and cultural frameworks is essential to ethical research practices. But this project clearly shows how convergence research is part of the ethical landscape \u0026ndash; the two-eyed seeing approach described earlier. While these findings are grounded in the specific experiences of one project team, they do offer broader insights into how convergence is negotiated in practice. As a single case study, this analysis does not seek to generalize across all convergence projects but instead provides a situated account of convergence research within a long-term partnership. In the next section, we provide two key themes that emerged in the study: time arcs and frictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Time Arcs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analyses revealed that a significant challenge in convergence research is the differing timelines --or 'time arcs'--among team members. We developed a schematic of overlapping \"time arcs\" to show how mismatched funding timelines among funders, researchers, and partners contributed to misalignment and shaped day-to-day project dynamics (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Time arcs emerged as a central theme in our research, highlighting how the interfaces between them can lead to 'slippage,' hindering progress, or create 'frictions' that either obstruct or facilitate convergence research. The following discussion examines the time arcs of funders, academics, and community members.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFunding agency time arcs are notably the shortest and most constrained. They are subject to congressionally enacted budgets and vulnerable to administration changes, which can occur as frequently as every two years. State and local budgets face similar forces, further limiting the scope and duration of applied research funding. Segmented project budgets also constrain the time arc of convergence research programs. It is rare to have federally funded programs that allow for a project plan longer than five years. Except for established programs like the NSF DISES Program, which allows research teams to plan for future proposal deadlines, these compressed time arcs present challenges to university researchers and community partners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe time arc for university researchers in convergence research projects typically exceeds the funding duration. Investigators need time to adapt to and learn each other\u0026rsquo;s disciplinary language and build on each other\u0026rsquo;s strengths. Once the research team secures funding, they must recruit student researchers and develop skills necessary for transdisciplinary, community-engaged research. Early-career researchers face pressures to produce results and publish, while mid-career and senior researchers may have additional administrative or service duties. This can limit early-career researchers' capacity to engage fully in convergence projects, despite the potential for long-term research productivity. In addition, different disciplines vary significantly in their timelines. For example, in this project, determining fish contaminant concentrations required coordination of sampling, processing, and analysis that is still ongoing three years later, whereas interviews and analyses took 14 months.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompared to researchers and funders, community partners have longer time arcs than university researchers and funding agencies. Building trust demands significant time and mutual commitment, often extending well beyond the lifespan of a grant. Successful convergence research requires understanding and aligning with community priorities. Research must be conducted with, by, or as communities. These foundational relationships are crucial for sustained engagement and research success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile researchers are often accustomed to funding timeframes, these may be problematic for communities. Community organizations serve the needs of their communities by focusing on long-term impact and measuring success by the scale and lasting impact of their programs, which often exceed a single research funding cycle. Not all communities have identified priorities for \u0026ldquo;research,\u0026rdquo; and many lack the staff time to engage in proposal preparation. Convergence research, particularly when addressing complex or \"wicked\" problems, requires building long-term relationships to identify and address community-defined issues. Funding agencies expecting convergence often do not allow sufficient time for relationships to be built and for proposals to be created together.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTime and timing conflicts between community and university research partners can hinder convergence research. Academic partners have research as a key employment component, whereas community partners often conduct research in addition to their regular priorities and duties. The limited capacity for these extra tasks can result in longer research timelines. Seasonal priorities for the work of community vs. academic partners may misalign opportunities for research collaboration. For example, community priorities often peak in summer. This timing may conflict with expectations of increased research activity during the summer for academic partners who have decreased instructional workload. University researchers face pressure to publish high-quality projects within a few years of the project's end. Data sovereignty issues may require prolonged discussions before publication, which is not supported in most tenure and promotion cases. These pressures are not conducive to building enduring relationships with community partners and may push academic researchers toward short-term solutions. Recognizing and accommodating these time constraints is crucial for maintaining productive partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUniversity and community partners can navigate differing time arcs by developing long-term goals achieved through multiple projects in progressive increments. In our experience, it was the involvement of team and community members committed to long-term engagements that enabled us to bridge these differences. By building on existing projects and relationships, and through feedback and direction from our community partners, we established a foundation for sustained collaboration. Our research has relied on long-term engagement across projects and produced lasting results. This process allows for various funding opportunities to support the project over a longer time supports objectives that are important to the community but not necessarily central to academic research. These practices \u0026ndash; grounded in respect and long-term commitment \u0026ndash; reflect the negotiated and relational nature of convergence research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Frictions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransdisciplinary research often brings inherent tensions. These tensions can stem from different theoretical and methodological approaches, varied communication styles (e.g., disciplinary jargon, priorities), and different goals and expectations. Tension related to issues such as intellectual property, data sovereignty, resource allocations, and communication barriers are common in collaborative research. Initially, our team viewed tensions as challenges; however, as the project progressed, we recognized that they could also enable collaboration. Frictions can lead to traction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe drew on anthropologist Anna Tsing's metaphor of \"friction\" to help us to understand and reframe these tensions. Tsing\u0026rsquo;s ethnographic work on globalization highlights how \u0026ldquo;awkward, unequal, and unstable\u0026rdquo; encounters can produce both conflict and traction (Tsing \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e:3). In this model, global processes gain shape and force through local interactions. Her metaphor of friction helped us to see tension as a potential catalyst. Frictions -- inherent tensions that arise when bridging knowledges\u0026ndash;function much like physical friction: they provide traction that allow for new understandings and strengthened team cohesion. One friction emerged around language. In early drafts and conversations, our team referred to the region as \u0026ldquo;contaminated\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;impaired\u0026rdquo; landscape \u0026ndash; terms our Tribal partners pushed back on. In response, we shifted toward relational framings. What can be done to mitigate the effects? Similarly, we no longer refer to fish solely in terms of contamination risk. Instead, we understand fish as culturally important. These tensions were productive in that they led to a deeper discussion about the risks of \"damaged-centered research\" and how to work to prioritize how to \"reimagine how findings might be used by, for, and with communities\" (Tuck \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e:409). Our teams\u0026rsquo; commitment to ethical spaces of engagement helped us to navigate tensions respectfully and productively, allowing for difference and offered an alternative to integration models that seek to resolve or ignore differences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eConvergence research and the Tribal Landscape System functioned as adaptive, practice-based frameworks that team members negotiated through their specific roles rather than through fixed theories or definitions. Team members operationalized convergence through the coordination of diverse expertise, experiences, and institutional roles, rather than through a codified definition. Similarly, engagement with the TLS was shaped by specific contributions - whether sampling, historical analysis, stewardship - rather than as a unified SES model. This operational flexibility reflects the central argument we advance here: convergence research is most effective when it allows epistemic distinctiveness rather than relying on uniform integration. In both cases, ambiguity became a productive feature, enabling the team to adapt to challenges, while staying grounded in community-identified priorities and ethical collaboration. By analyzing how team members defined and operationalized convergence, this study highlights the value of qualitative, reflexive approaches for expanding convergence theory and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis project was grounded in participatory, place-based convergence research situated within an ethical space of engagement that centers Indigenous voices, priorities, and knowledge systems (Ermine \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Built on long-term partnerships, the team bridged knowledge systems to address complex environmental and social challenges, while remaining accountable community priorities. Our findings suggest that managing time arcs and frictions depended on building relationships. Tools such as the \u003cem\u003eSeason of Research\u003c/em\u003e guided protocols that oriented researchers, mitigated tensions, and prioritized ethical engagement. Tensions become catalysts for learning and building flexibility into the research design that acknowledged timelines, knowledge systems, and shifting priorities created space for innovation. In this model, convergence research is not simply interdisciplinary \u0026ndash; it is a collaborative process that maintains distinct epistemologies while working toward shared objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpanding the convergence canon is critical to broadening cultural relevance, sustainability, and epistemic diversity. Our research sought to bridge knowledge systems through long-term partnerships aimed at addressing complex social and environmental issues. An expanded canon must therefore recognize community priorities, histories, and values. We suggest a reconceptualization and reorientation toward a long-standing body of convergent knowledge: Indigenous and descendant community knowledges and practices. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provides some examples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpanding the convergence canon: Indigenous and descendant community expertise\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelevance to Convergence Research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCajete (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndigenous science, ecological balance, interdependent research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmphasizes balance and \u003cem\u003einterconnectedness\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eErmine (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical engagement, Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, epistemological respect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHighlights the need for spaces \u003cem\u003erespecting\u003c/em\u003e both Indigenous and scientific methodologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWilson S (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCeremonial integrity, relational accountability, Indigenous methodologies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdvocates for research respecting Indigenous ceremonial practices,\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ebroadening knowledge generation methods and \u003cem\u003erelational accountability.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKovach (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndigenous research methodologies, Indigenous epistemologies, relational knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrioritizes \u003cem\u003erelationality\u003c/em\u003e and dialogue.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBartlett (2012)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo-Eyed Seeing, Indigenous and mainstream knowledges, science education and co-learning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCombines Indigenous and sciences, emphasizing \u003cem\u003eco-learning\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003emutual respect.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKimmerer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlant ecologies, environmental philosophy, weaving knowledge systems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdvocates for \u003cem\u003eweaving\u003c/em\u003e scientific methods with Indigenous \u003cem\u003estorytelling\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHill and Coleman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo Row Wampum, Indigenous-university partnerships, dialogical relationships, mutual respect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePromotes research partnerships that \u003cem\u003emaintain sovereign\u003c/em\u003e, interdependent relationships, rooted in \u003cem\u003emutual respect\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReid (2021)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo-Eyed Seeing, Indigenous knowledge, fisheries management, knowledge coexistence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmphasizes knowledge \u003cem\u003ecoexistence\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ecomplementarity\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe MAJORs, including NSF and NIH, play a central role in supporting and accelerating this work. Their investments make it possible to build and sustain interdisciplinary and transformative research, support institutional change, and expand the scope of research. Our project benefited from these investments. Our convergence research builds on existing efforts to demonstrate how recognizing difference does not detract, but instead deepens the research relevance and its capacity to address complex problems. This flexibility allowed the team to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic, evolving timelines, shifting priorities, and unforeseen challenges across the project\u0026rsquo;s life cycle, including student and staff turnover, data delays, and project shifts, while maintaining our focus on partner priorities. The same flexibility allowed us to begin with an SES model and, through multiple iterations, co-develop a framework that held meaning for all partners.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how convergence research was conceptualized and practiced within an Indigenous-University partnership. Our findings suggest that convergence is not a static theoretical model but is instead a negotiated and situated practice. The project produced knowledge directly relevant to a specific socio-ecological challenge: stewardship in the context of tribal resource management. We argued that maintaining and integrity of difference \u0026ndash; where researchers bridge knowledge systems \u0026ndash; supports research grounded in relational accountability and community priorities. This approach expands the convergence canon and strengthens its practical relevance in interdisciplinary and community-centered contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is much at stake. These stakes are particularly urgent given the current political climate in the United States where growing interventions in research funding and attacks on science undermine public trust and support. Convergence anchored in relational accountability and situated, community-based knowledge systems cannot be so easily dismantled. As Kovach (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) reminds us, research is a political act: it reflects how knowledge is produced and who benefits. Research drives policy transformation that communities use to address land alienation and loss (Baird 2017, 2024). Bridging the \u0026ldquo;settler-Indigenous divide\" requires prioritizing accountability and relational engagement (Tuck \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This is \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e about communities \"educating\" others but decentering Western knowledge and decolonizing research practices (Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). An epistemic approach rooted in Indigenous consent ensures that appropriate voices lead decision-making and are grounded in accountability. Expanding the convergence canon is therefore a necessary political and ethical response to protect inclusive, community-driven research in times of instability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ANONYMOUS\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eM Baird , V Gagnon, J Perlinger, N Urban, K Kamm wrote the main manuscript text. E. Ravindran, K. Kamm, and C. Ackley provided editing and revising.C. VanDam prepared figures.L. Juip and M. Baird undertook the research. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe express our gratitude to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish \u0026amp; Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) for their guidance and support. We thank the participants who attended the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) Community Partners Meeting for their valuable feedback. We also thank Beth Hoy and the Great Lakes Research Center (GLRC) for their early support of this project. We acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Emily Shaw, as well as undergraduate students J. Messer and M. Klanderman. Dione Price (KBIC Natural Resources Department) provided helpful comments on an earlier draft. We also appreciate the constructive feedback on our research from participants in the 2024 session, \"Shared Visions for Holistic and Indigenous-Led Stewardship in the Great Lakes,\" at the International Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR) conference. The authors assume full responsibility for any errors or omissions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eRedacted citation \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarnhardt R, Kawagley AO (2005) Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. AEQ 36 (1): 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBartlett C, Marshall M, Marshall A (2012) Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J. Environ. Sci, 2(4): 331\u0026ndash;340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1341 2-012-0086-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCajete G (2000) Native science: Natural laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristopher S, Saba R, Lachapelle P, Jennings D, Colclough Y, Cooper C, Cummins C, Eggers MJ, FourStar K, Harris K, Kuntz SW, LaFromboise V, LaVeaux D, McDonald T, Read Bird J, Rink E, Webster L, (2011) Applying Indigenous community-based participatory research principles to partnership development in health disparities research. Fam Community Health. 34:246-255. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e318219606f\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErmine, W (2007) The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous LJ, 6:193-203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEyre HA, Berk M, Lavretsky H, Reynolds CF (eds) (2021) Convergence mental health: A transdisciplinary approach to innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiore, S. M. (2008) Interdisciplinarity as Teamwork: How the Science of Teams can inform Team Science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251-277\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinn S, Colman G (2016) The pivotal role of the social sciences in environmental health sciences research, New Solut 26:389-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291116666485\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeld M (2019) Decolonizing research paradigms in the context of settler colonialism: An unsettling, mutual, and collaborative effort. Int. J. Qual. Methods 18:1\u0026ndash;16 https://doi.org/10.1177/16094 06918 821574\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHill RW, Coleman D (2019) The two row Wampum-Covenant chain tradition as a guide for Indigenous-university research partnerships. Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol. 19(5):339-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708618809138\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsrael B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A (1998) Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 19: 173-202. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing H. (2019) Land Back: A Yellowhead Institute Red Paper. Available from https://redpaper.yellowheadinstitute.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKimmerer RW (2015) Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants, Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKimmerer RW (2022) Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action BioScience 52:432\u0026ndash;438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKorhonen-Kurki K, Bor S, Faehnle M, Kosenius AK, Kuusela S, K\u0026auml;yhk\u0026ouml; J, Keskinen M (2022) Empirical insights into knowledge-weaving processes in strategic environmental research. J Environ. Pol. Plan 24(6): 733\u0026ndash;748. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2022.2044296\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKovach M (2009) Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKutz S, Tomaselli M (2019) \u0026ldquo;Two-eyed seeing\u0026rdquo; supports wildlife health. Science 364(6446):1135\u0026ndash;1137. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.aau6170\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLatulippe N (2015) Bridging parallel rows: Epistemic difference and relational accountability in cross-cultural research. Int. Indig. Policy J. 6(2):1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2015.6.2.7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc. 19(2):30. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). Syst Rev. 4(1):1. http://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNASEM National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) Fostering the culture of convergence in research: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25271\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Research Council (2014) Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://doi.org/10.17226/18722.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC https://doi.org/10.17226/19007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Science Foundation (2016) Learn about convergence research. Available via DIALOG. https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/research-types/learn-about-convergence-research Accessed 20 March 2022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorman ES (2015) Governing transboundary waters: Canada, the United States and Indigenous communities. Routledge, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOerther DB (2019) An example of convergence: Guatemala research on WaSH (GRoW). J Adv Nurs 75:2264\u0026ndash;2266. http://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14144 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOxford English Dictionary (n.d.) Convergence. In OED.com. Retrieved June 30, 2024, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/convergence\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePati D, Lorusso LN (2018) How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD 11(1):15-30. doi: 10.1177/1937586717747384. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeek, L, Tobin J, Adams R, Wu H, Mathews M (2020) A framework for convergence research in the hazards and disaster field: The natural hazards engineering research infrastructure CONVERGE facility. Front. Built Environ. 6:110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00110\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoole R (1972) Towards deep subjectivity. Harper \u0026amp; Row, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F (2021) \u0026ldquo;Two-Eyed seeing\u0026rdquo;: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish 22:243261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoco MC, Bainbridge WS. (2013a). The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: convergence of knowledge, technology, and society. J. Nanoparticle Res. 15(9):1-17. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1946-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoco MC, Bainbridge WS, Tonn B, Whitesides G (eds) (2013b) Converging knowledge, technology, and society: Beyond convergence of nano-bio-info-cognitive technologies. Springer, Berlin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharp PA, Langer R (2011) Promoting convergence in biomedical science. Science 333(6042):527.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpecht A, Crowston, K (2022) Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes. PLoS One 17: 1\u0026ndash;25. DOI: http://.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278043\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTornow JS, Kurose J, Lewis WJ, Tilbury DM, Easterling WE, Iacono CS, Keiser RL, Kinney A, Cook F. (2018) Dear colleague letter: Growing convergence research. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC., https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18058/nsf18058.jsp\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTsing A (2005) Friction: An ethnology of global connection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuck E (2009) Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harv. Educ. Rev. 79: 409-427.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuck E, Yang KW (2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education \u0026amp; Society 1:1-\u0026shy;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWachtendorf T, Brown B, Holguin-Veras J (2013) Catastrophe characteristics and their impact on critical supply chains: problematizing materiel convergence and management following Hurricane Katrina. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg 10(2):497-520. http://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2012-0069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilcox A, Provencher JF, Dominique A, Alexander SM, Taylor JJ, Cooke SJ, Thomas PJ, and Johnson LR (2023) Braiding Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences in the Alberta oil sands region: A systematic review. FACETS 8:1. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWildcat M, McDonald M, Irlbacher-Fox S, Coulthard G (2014) Learning from the land: Indigenous land-based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education \u0026amp; Society. 3(3):1-15. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson N (2019) On the road to convergence research. Biosci. 69(8): 587\u0026ndash;593. http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz066.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson S (2008) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing, Black Point, Nova Scotia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiang WN (2013) Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110:1-3. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.oed.com/dictionary/convergence_n?tl=true\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.oed.com/dictionary/convergence_n?tl=true\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The canon references debate in the humanities in the 1990s, especially a critique of its exclusionary nature. Resnik (1990:221), referencing law, posed the question of the canon succinctly: \"what (and who) is given voice; who is privileged, repeated, and invoked; who silenced, ignored, submerged, and marginalized.\"\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e see, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dynamics-integrated-socio-environmental-systems\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dynamics-integrated-socio-environmental-systems\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Community and place-based convergence research, Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous-University partnerships, Socio-ecological systems, Canon, MAJORS","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7151631/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7151631/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents results from an NSF-funded convergence research project conducted in partnership with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (TRIBAL PARTNER) in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. While convergence research frameworks often emphasize deep integration, we argue that participatory, place-based, and community-led convergence requires maintaining an integrity of difference. Through a systematic literature review, surveys and qualitative interviews, we examined how team members operationalized convergence research and the Tribal Landscape System (TLS) framework. Two cross-cutting dynamics -- time arcs and frictions -- emerged as central to shaping convergence in practice. Our findings demonstrate that long-term partnerships, ethical engagement, and adaptive collaboration can transform tensions into productive spaces for knowledge co-production. Expanding the convergence canon to support epistemic plurality strengthens community-led research, sustains collaborations, and offers insights for those practicing convergence amid growing political and institutional pressures on public science.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Bridging Knowledge Systems in Convergence Research: Community-Centered and Place-Based Approaches in Lake Superior's Keweenaw Bay","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-30 08:03:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7151631/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"12f202a0-1d4f-4ebc-ab98-bdeeb7cdd07c","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-30T00:08:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-30 08:03:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7151631","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7151631","identity":"rs-7151631","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}