Suchergebnisse

There is conceptual confusion in academic scholarship regarding Indigenous research methodologies and decolonising research methodologies. Scholars view these paradigms as similar yet distinct, but very few seek to define that distinction. In this article, I explore the relationship between these approaches to academic research. Both paradigms emphasise the need to transform the academy because of its tendency to marginalise non-Western epistemologies. Transformation requires the interconnection and co-ordination of many paradigms including Indigenous, feminist, and antiracist approaches to research. I propose viewing Indigenous and decolonising research methodologies as a relationship, and suggest both are dynamic practices that do not exist outside of the people who use them. What they look like and how they relate to one another will depend upon who uses them, why they are used, and where they are practiced.

Moving towards reconciliation within Indigenous research requires the careful examination of existing practices at all stages of the research process. Engagement in and dissemination of reflexive processes may increase the relevance of research results for Indigenous communities and partners. This article describes and contextualizes the results obtained from this qualitative research study examining parenting needs and child reunification in these communities. The initial results were deemed relevant by the partnering community but research stakeholders reported that they did not reflect all community values. Based on the advice of the Research Advisory Group, the research team decided to further analyze the results to address these shortcomings. The reanalysis process focused on improving the perceived meaningfulness and relevance to communities. Exploration of how these results were re-situated in an Indigenous framework of wellbeing is discussed. Researcher reflections about the project processes and considerations for future research are explored.

Tribal Institutional Review Boards (TIRBs) in the United States assert their rights within sovereign nations by developing ethical research processes that align with tribal values to protect indigenous knowledge systems and their community from cultural appropriation, exploitation, misuse, and harm. We reviewed six TIRB applications and processes to gain a better understanding about their requirements and research ethics. We located 48 activated and deactivated TIRBs in a database, mapped them in relation to tribal reservation lands, and then conducted in-depth content analysis. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of building relationships, becoming fully acquainted with the TIRB's operating environment before seeking research approval, and issues related to tribal data management practices.

Based on research into Indigenous people and sport, this article discusses the opportunities and challenges for a non-Indigenous researcher to study Indigenous issues. The author shares personal experiences from research into Sámi sport (Sámi are the Indigenous people of the North Calotte) and compares these with the literature relating to post-colonial methodologies. It concludes with some overarching elements to take into consideration when researching Indigenous peoples: reflection including critical self-reflection (as in any qualitative research); reciprocity, including respect, dialogue and that the research must benefit the Indigenous people under study and in general; and awareness about the heterogeneity within Indigenous groups and consciousness about the interface between researcher and Indigenous peoples. Given the heterogeneity, the interfaces vary.

Challenging western research conventions has a strong documented history in Indigenous critical theory and Kaupapa Māori research discourse. This article will draw from the existing research in these fields and expand on some of the core critiques of the biomedical model in Māori research environments. Of interest are the tensions produced by an over-reliance on individual informed consent as the panacea of ethical research, particularly when the research concerns communities who prioritise collective autonomy. These tensions are further exacerbated in research environments where knowledge is commodified and issues of knowledge ownership are present. Continuing a critique of the informed consenting procedure, this article considers its role in emulating a capitalist exchange of goods and perpetuating a knowledge economy premised on the exploitation of Indigenous people, resources and knowledge. Finally, this article will consider emerging ethical concerns regarding secondary data use in an era of big data.

In the first book ever published on Indigenous quantitative methodologies, Maggie Walter and Chris Andersen open up a major new approach to research across the disciplines and applied fields. While qualitative methods have been rigorously critiqued and reformulated, the population statistics relied on by virtually all research on Indigenous peoples continue to be taken for granted as straightforward, transparent numbers. This book dismantles that persistent positivism with a forceful critique, then fills the void with a new paradigm for Indigenous quantitative methods, using concrete examples of research projects from First World Indigenous peoples in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Concise and accessible, it is an ideal supplementary text as well as a core component of the methodological toolkit for anyone conducting Indigenous research or using Indigenous population statistics.

Health research tends to be deficit-based by nature; as researchers we typically quantify or qualify absence of health markers or presence of illness. This can create a narrative with far reaching effects for communities already subject to stigmatization. In the context of Indigenous health research, a deficit-based discourse has the potential to contribute to stereotyping and marginalization of Indigenous Peoples in wider society. This is especially true when researchers fail to explore the roots of health deficits, namely colonization, Westernization, and intergenerational trauma, risking conflation of complex health challenges with inherent Indigenous characteristics. In this paper we explore the incompatibility of deficit-based research with principles from several ethical frameworks including the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) Chapter 9, OCAP® (ownership, control, access, possession), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami National Inuit Strategy on Research, and Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global Health Research. Additionally we draw upon cases of deficit-based research and stereotyping in healthcare, in order to identify how this relates to epistemic injustice and explore alternative approaches. ; La recherche en santé a tendance à être basée sur les déficits; en tant que chercheurs, généralement nous quantifions ou qualifions l'absence de marqueurs de santé ou la présence d'une maladie. Cela peut créer un récit ayant des effets d'une grande portée pour les communautés déjà victimes de stigmatisation. Dans le contexte de la recherche en santé autochtone, un discours basé sur les déficits peut contribuer aux stéréotypes et à la marginalisation des peuples autochtones dans une société élargie. C'est particulièrement vrai lorsque les chercheurs ne parviennent pas à explorer les racines des déficits de santé, à savoir la colonisation, l'occidentalisation et les traumatismes intergénérationnels, au risque de confondre des problèmes de santé complexes avec des caractéristiques autochtones inhérentes. Dans cet article, nous explorons l'incompatibilité de la recherche basée sur les déficits avec les principes de plusieurs cadres éthiques, y compris le chapitre 9 de l'Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils (EPTC2), les principes PCAP® (propriété, contrôle, accès, possession), la Stratégie nationale sur la recherche inuite Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et les principes de la Coalition canadienne pour la recherche en santé mondiale (CCRSM). En outre, nous nous appuyons sur des cas de recherche basée sur les déficits et le stéréotypage dans le domaine des soins de santé, dans le but d'identifier leur lien avec l'injustice épistémique et d'explorer des approches alternatives.