Indigenous Research Principles Research Articles

Engaging First Nations People at Work: The Influence of Culture and Context

The paper seeks to understand organisational context and culture’s influence on engaging First Nations People in Canada in work. Organisations have many opportunities to attract and engage Indigenous people, who have distinct worldviews and unique cultural customs not necessarily reflected in a North American workplace. Indigenous people also grapple with the historical and ongoing disparate impacts of settler colonialism that intersect colonial systems in most every area of their lives. This study worked within Indigenous research principles to encourage the articulation of deeply felt experiences and points of view of how First Nations people viewed and interacted with their work. The findings reviewed the experiences of twelve First Nations individuals working in non-Indigenous organisations. Through anti-colonial and critical organisational theoretical lenses, the study reveals how the context and culture that defined this sample of First Nations people shaped their views of what is essential to engaging them in the workplace. The findings illustrate what First Nations people would like to see in a workplace culture, what they feel needs to be recognised as part of their unique Indigenous context, and the approaches and practises that are most important for engaging them. Understanding the effect of context and culture on positive work interactions provides new information for organisational leaders, managers, diversity officers, and Human Resource practitioners to better support First Nations engagement in the workplace. It may also offer an approach to better engaging other culturally diverse organisational groups. The results add value to the fields of critical theory, anti-colonial theory, critical management studies, and Indigenous wholistic theory. The results further the discussion on the processes of decolonization and the recognition of Indigenous and minority rights in the workplace.

Growing stronger together: Sharing a story of culturally responsive evaluation with indigenous families and communities

BackgroundGaps exist in understanding how to create and conduct culturally responsive evaluations. This information is particularly critical when working with evidence-based programs and when involving populations that have and continue to experience oppression and trauma. ObjectiveWe share our story of developing and carrying out a culturally responsive evaluation of an EBP, Strengthening Families Program (SFP), with Indigenous families. Participants and settingA collective storytelling approach was used based on reflections from the evaluation team and key implementation staff. MethodsWe used a collective storytelling approach, organizing the content around six previously identified principles of Indigenous research (Tsosie et al., 2022). ResultsEmerging themes, supported by quotes throughout, illustrate the importance of organizing the integration of culture into the evaluation through the six principles of Indigenous research: respect, relationship, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility, and representation. ConclusionWorking toward a culturally responsive evaluation allowed for the creation of more meaningful connections with Indigenous community partners and families. It also acknowledged insights that partners and families bring to the work and encouraged multi-directional learning to occur between evaluators, partners, and families.

\u201cWe are not stray leaves blowing about in the wind\u201d: exploring the impact of Family Wellbeing empowerment research, 1998\u20132021

BackgroundAn Aboriginal-developed empowerment and social and emotional wellbeing program, known as Family Wellbeing (FWB), has been found to strengthen the protective factors that help Indigenous Australians to deal with the legacy of colonisation and intergenerational trauma. This article reviews the research that has accompanied the implementation of the program, over a 23 year period. The aim is to assess the long-term impact of FWB research and identify the key enablers of research impact and the limitations of the impact assessment exercise. This will inform more comprehensive monitoring of research impact into the future.MethodsTo assess impact, the study took an implementation science approach, incorporating theory of change and service utilisation frameworks, to create a logic model underpinned by Indigenous research principles. A research impact narrative was developed based on mixed methods analysis of publicly available data on: 1) FWB program participation; 2) research program funding; 3) program outcome evaluation (nine studies); and 4) accounts of research utilisation (seven studies).Results Starting from a need for research on empowerment identified by research users, an investment of $2.3 million in research activities over 23 years produced a range of research outputs that evidenced social and emotional wellbeing benefits arising from participation in the FWB program. Accounts of research utilisation confirmed the role of research outputs in educating participants about the program, and thus, facilitating more demand (and funding acquisition) for FWB. Overall research contributed to 5,405 recorded participants accessing the intervention. The key enablers of research impact were; 1) the research was user- and community-driven; 2) a long-term mutually beneficial partnership between research users and researchers; 3) the creation of a body of knowledge that demonstrated the impact of the FWB intervention via different research methods; 4) the universality of the FWB approach which led to widespread application.ConclusionsThe FWB research impact exercise reinforced the view that assessing research impact is best approached as a “wicked problem” for which there are no easy fixes. It requires flexible, open-ended, collaborative learning-by-doing approaches to build the evidence base over time. Steps and approaches that research groups might take to build the research impact knowledge base within their disciplines are discussed.

Decolonising design practices and research in unceded Australia: reframing design-led research methods

Much of design teaching, learning and research in Australia is determined by Eurocentric traditions and the ongoing colonial project. In this context Indigenous Peoples continue to experience erasure, silencing and appropriation of practices and knowledges. The Visual Communication Design Program, situated in the School of Design at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), is committed to disrupting this trajectory. In this article we describe an immersive model that seeks to challenge the role of the design educator, creative practitioner and researcher on unceded Gadigal Lands in the city of Sydney, Australia. We reflect on the challenges of facilitating Visual Communication Design and Emergent Practices, for a third iteration as an online studio experience, during COVID-19 in the context of the climate crisis, bushfires and Black Lives Matter. This iteration is the result of four years of deep collaboration with local First Nation Elders, Indigenous scholars and practitioners. The research-focused studio for 180 final-year visual communication design students is led by Local Elders, cultural and research advisers with the support of studio leaders. The consideration of design-led research methods through a process that infuses Indigenous research principles builds on the longitudinal research into the role of the emplaced designer in Indigenous-led projects on Country. Our studio, titled ‘In Our Own Backyard’, provides students with strength-based design capabilities and understandings of the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights (UNDRIP), Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights (ICIP) and the Australian Indigenous Design Charter. As a studio experience, the aim is to create conditions which spark possibilities for re-orientation towards relational and respectful negotiation of difference, and the capacity to action Indigenous self-determination in complex practitioner scenarios.

Are Indigenous research principles incorporated into maternal health research? A scoping review of the global literature

BackgroundIndigenous women world-wide are diverse and heterogenous, yet many have similar experiences of colonization, land dispossession, and discrimination. These experiences along with inequitable access to, and quality of, maternal healthcare increase adverse maternal health outcomes. To improve health outcomes for Indigenous women, studies must be conducted with Indigenous involvement and reflect Indigenous research principles.Objectives/Aim: The aim of this review was to explore the range, extent, and nature of Indigenous maternal health research and to assess the reporting of Indigenous research principles in the global Indigenous maternal health literature. MethodsFollowing a systematic scoping review protocol, four scholarly electronic databases were searched. Articles were included if they reported empirical research published between 2000 and 2019 and had a focus on Indigenous maternal health. Descriptive data were extracted from relevant articles and descriptive analysis was conducted. Included articles were also assessed for reporting of Indigenous research principles, including Indigenous involvement, context of colonization, Indigenous conceptualizations of health, community benefits, knowledge dissemination to participants or communities, and policy or intervention recommendations. ResultsFour-hundred and forty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. While studies were conducted in all continents except Antarctica, less than 3% of articles described research in low-income countries. The most researched topics were access to and quality of maternity care (25%), pregnancy outcome and/or complications (18%), and smoking, alcohol and/or drug use during pregnancy (14%). The most common study design was cross-sectional (49%), and the majority of articles used quantitative methods only (68%). Less than 2% of articles described or reported all Indigenous research principles, and 71% of articles did not report on Indigenous People's involvement. ConclusionsBy summarizing the trends in published literature on Indigenous maternal health, we highlight the need for increased geographic representation of Indigenous women, expansion of research to include important but under-researched topics, and meaningful involvement of Indigenous Peoples.

Toward an Anti‐Racist Linguistic Anthropology: An Indigenous Response to White Supremacy

Drawing from my lived experiences as an Indigenous linguist, this article exposes and responds to epistemological racism (Kubota 2020) in the discipline of Linguistic Anthropology, which I argue institutionalizes and reproduces white supremacy. I extend Rosa and Flores’s (2017) raciolinguistic perspective, which examines the co‐naturalization of race and language, to the co‐naturalization of race and language scholars. Through a critical analysis of the hegemony of the “white linguistic anthropologist,” I demonstrate how BIPOC linguistic anthropologists are expected to assimilate to a white normative culture of producing, disseminating, and evaluating anthropological knowledge. Employing ideas from Indigenous research methodologies such as the notion of relational accountability and related “R’s” such as respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and rights; the framework of Radical Indigenism (Garroutte 2003), which argues for research praxis based on Indigenous philosophies of knowledge; and Felt Theory (Million 2009), which asserts the validity of knowledge emerging from experiences that are felt; I offer alternatives that are grounded in Indigenous research principles and protocols. I conclude by outlining a reimagined discipline, a linguistic anthropology built from Indigenous epistemologies and norms of relational knowledge production, and discuss the anti‐racist praxis that such a transformation could facilitate.

Moving towards Effective First Nations’ Source Water Protection: Barriers, Opportunities, and a Framework

It is well known that watershed-based source water protection programs are integral to the provision of clean drinking water. However, the involvement of Indigenous communities in these programs is very limited in Canada, which has contributed to the vulnerability of Indigenous source waters to contamination. Through a partnership with an Anishinaabe community, this research aimed to identify challenges and opportunities for communities and practitioners to improve the protection of Indigenous source waters in the province of Ontario. The methodology followed the Indigenous research principles of relationship, respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility. Interviews and a youth focus group were conducted with Indigenous community members and practitioners from industry, academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government. Analysis was conducted using an iterative process to develop codes and themes in the qualitative data analysis software NVivo. Results indicated that issues with scale, jurisdiction, the concept of source water protection, representation, funding, and capacity impact efforts to protect Indigenous source waters. Hopeful recent developments and upcoming opportunities were identified, and a water protection framework for First Nation communities in Ontario was developed in partnership with an Anishinaabe water protection committee. Recommendations are provided to multiple sectors for moving forward respectfully, and effectively, towards the protection of Indigenous waters.

Indigenous Cancer Research: Reflections on Roles and Responsibilities.

When asked for a commentary on the roles and responsibilities of nonindigenous researchers in indigenous cancer research, several potential nonindigenous coauthors were contacted. The majority wanted to “run for the hills,” signifying that many researchers feel uncomfortable, out of their depth, and fearful regarding methodologies and principles for safe and effective research with and for indigenous peoples. Most health research is relevant for indigenous peoples, and most researchers are nonindigenous. Thus, if researchers don’t engage with indigenous research principles, health research can and does result in significant harm for indigenous peoples.1,2 Nonengagement may also prevent potential positive outcomes for indigenous communities (eg, health gain, workforce and community development) and impinge on indigenous rights to health and development.3 In this commentary, we outline our reflections and observations on the roles and responsibilities of nonindigenous cancer researchers and identify some of the principles that guide researchers in Aotearoa (Aotearoa is the name given by the indigenous Māori for New Zealand). We do not attempt to provide an in-depth analysis or comprehensive best practice summary, but hope to encourage more discussion in this critical and evolving area.

Pursuing Mutually Beneficial Research: Insights from the Poverty Action Research Project

Research with, in, and for First Nations communities is often carried out in a complex environment. Now in its fourth year, the Poverty Action Research Project (PARP) has learned first-hand the nature of some of these complexities and how to approach and work through various situations honouring the Indigenous research principles of respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relevance (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001). By sharing stories from the field, this article explores the overarching theme of how the worlds of academe and First Nations communities differ, affecting the research project in terms of pace, pressures, capacity, and information technology. How PARP research teams have worked with these challenges, acknowledging the resilience and dedication of the First Nations that are a part of the project, provides insights for future researchers seeking to engage in work with Indigenous communities.

Reconciling community-based Indigenous research and academic practices: Knowing principles is not always enough

Historically, Indigenous health research in Canada has failed to engage Indigenous peoples and communities as primary stakeholders of research evidence. Increasingly, research ethics and methodologies are being positioned as tools for Indigenous self-determination. In response, mainstream institutions have developed new ethical principles for research involving Indigenous people. While these transformations are necessary steps towards re-orienting research practices, they are not prescriptive. In this paper, we make visible three dilemmas from a case study in which Indigenous health research frameworks provided limited guidance or were unclear about how to balance community priorities with Indigenous research principles. We also discuss the strategies used to resolve each of these dilemmas.We draw examples from a project that examined the lived experiences of children and youth living with FASD and their caregivers. This project was conducted in collaboration with Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, an Indigenous community in Labrador, Canada. In doing so, we argue that knowing the key guiding principles in Indigenous health research is not always enough, and that the ‘real-world’ context of practices and relationships can lead to conflicts that are not easily resolved with adherence to these principles.

Book Review: Journeys in Community-Based Research. Jeffrey, B., I.M. Findlay, D. Martz, and L. Clarke (Eds.) Regina, SK: The University of Regina Press, 2014.

Research with, in, and for First Nations communities is often carried out in a complex environment. Now in its fourth year, the Poverty Action Research Project (PARP) has learned first-hand the nature of some of these complexities and how to approach and work through various situations honouring the Indigenous research principles of respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relevance (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001). By sharing stories from the field, this article explores the overarching theme of how the worlds of academe and First Nations communities differ, affecting the research project in terms of pace, pressures, capacity, and information technology. How PARP research teams have worked with these challenges, acknowledging the resilience and dedication of the First Nations that are a part of the project, provides insights for future researchers seeking to engage in work with Indigenous communities.

Building Indigenous Australian research capacity

Objectives: To build individual Indigenous research capacity and strengthen the capability of health research programmes to be culturally and ethically inclusive of Indigenous Australians in public health research. Methods: In order to facilitate optimal participation and in recognition of the differing levels of research experience and knowledge held within this community of practice, an inclusive and culturally appropriate mixed methods approach with influences from action research and Indigenous research principles was undertaken. Results: Over the duration of the project, participants improved their research outcomes as measured by a range of factors including publications, completion of degrees and retention of project members. Conclusions: Provision of an Indigenous led, culturally appropriate system of infrastructure and support centred on capacity building is effective in strengthen the inclusion of Indigenous Australians in research.

Beyond culture‐centric and gendered models of management: perspectives on Filipina business leadership

This paper argues a case for the integration of grounded theory and indigenous research principles in international management research. Through presenting results of a study of women managers in the Philippines, the paper shows ways in which culture‐bound or ethnocentric management theory and practice can be enriched by analysing culture and gender dimensions of dominant discourses around women in management.