The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 17 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Reconsidering Institutional Research Policies on Indigenous Collections
Open accessAbstract
The fields of archaeology and museology are working to encourage and enforce research methodologies and policies that center reciprocity and respect among archaeologists, institutions, and Native Nations. This shift in approach is grounded in part by the inclusion of the Duty of Care clause in the revised NAGPRA regulations and partly by a revised awareness of ethical standards. Policy-level changes around research access are the most impactful but can also be the most challenging to initiate. In this article, we address shifts in both institutional research policies and researchers’ approaches and practices that actively incorporate Native perspectives. The framework presented was developed as a complement to the Indigenous Collections Care Guide and is grounded in case studies from three institutions that have changed their research policies. The resulting prompts, tips, examples, and challenges are provided for both researchers and institutions to evaluate research and access practices and how they intersect with Native perspectives. Seeking input and consent from Native Nations adds challenging layers to research, but the depth, quality, and impact of the research and the strengthening of relationships and trust with the communities significantly outweigh the extra time and effort., ResumenLas disciplinas de la arqueología y la museología están trabajando para fomentar y aplicar metodologías y políticas de investigación que centren la reciprocidad y el respeto entre los arqueólogos, las instituciones, y las naciones nativas. Este cambio de enfoque se debe en parte a la inclusión de la cláusula del deber de cuidado en las regulaciones revisadas de la NAGPRA y en parte a una mayor conciencia de los estándares éticos. Los cambios a nivel de políticas en torno al acceso a la investigación son los de mayor impacto, pero también pueden ser los más difíciles de iniciar. En este artículo, los autores abordan consideraciones sobre las modificaciones en las políticas de investigación institucionales y en los enfoques y prácticas de los investigadores que incorporan activamente las perspectivas nativas. El esquema presentado fue desarrollado para complementar la Guía de Cuidado de Colecciones Indígenas y se basa en estudios de tres instituciones que han modificado sus propias políticas. Las siguientes sugerencias, consejos, ejemplos, y desafíos se brindan tanto a investigadores como a instituciones para evaluar las prácticas de investigación y acceso y cómo se cruzan con las perspectivas nativas. Buscar aportes y consentimiento de las naciones nativas agrega capas desafiantes a la investigación, pero la profundidad, la calidad y el impacto de la investigación y el fortalecimiento de las relaciones y la confianza con las comunidades superan significativamente el tiempo y el esfuerzo adicionales.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article offers a framework and three institutional case studies for changing research policies on Indigenous collections to center Native consent, consultation, and reciprocity, complementing the Indigenous Collections Care Guide and NAGPRA’s Duty of Care provision. It argues that policy-level access changes are the most impactful but hardest to initiate, and that seeking Native input and consent adds time and effort while improving research depth, quality, and relationships.
Key findings
- The Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology (RSPI) has required a letter of support from the appropriate descendant community before research access since 2021; after a 2018 research controversy, the full process to develop and enact the new policy took about nine months.
- At the Indian Arts Research Center (IARC), a 2009 review of 78 pottery items labeled “Part of the IAF Collection of Zuni Pseudo-Ceremonial Pottery” expanded into review of the entire 1,100-item Pueblo of Zuni collection; physical reviews continued intermittently for more than six years, followed by three additional years of data review, and database fields such as “Tribal Instructions” and “Tribal Collection Review Remarks” were repurposed to record handling, housing, access, photography, and publication restrictions.
- The Gilcrease Museum’s 2017 IMLS grant supported cataloging, imaging, and digital publication of more than a thousand Native cultural materials, but lacked consultation planning or funding; a subsequent 2018 NAGPRA Consultation & Documentation grant supported reviews with 15 Native Nations, leading to restricted or destroyed imaging/cataloging work, an amended digitization grant with fewer items online, and a new requirement for approval from affiliated Native Nations before taking or sharing new images.
- The article identifies three consistent guidelines—meaningful consultation with Native Nations, transparency, and flexibility—and three core policy-development concepts: determine what the institution can commit to and implement, understand institutional goals for research on collections, and outline accountability to policies and standards.
Methods
- This is a policy and guidance article developed as a complement to the Indigenous Collections Care Guide, grounded in case studies from three institutions that changed their research policies: RSPI, IARC, and Gilcrease Museum.
- The ICC Guide context includes a working group of 20 professionals, an initial draft written between 2021 and 2023, and review by more than 75 Native professionals and representatives; the guide will be available for free in 2026.
- The article states that no original data were used and no permits were required; its analysis is qualitative, drawing on institutional case studies, policy considerations in Table 1, and researcher steps in Figure 2.
Limitations
- The paper states that developing a universal standard practice is not feasible because policy needs vary by collection scope, institutional history and relationships, and the communities and cultures represented; resources, capacity, collections, and relationships are unique to each institution.
- It also states that many Native Nations lack capacity to review, respond to, or be involved in research proposals or requests, and that researchers and museum staff face competing urgent priorities that demand staff time.
- Evident from the text: the findings are based on three institutional case studies rather than a systematic sample or quantitative evaluation, and the article reports no original data, so the guidance is descriptive and context-dependent.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
1 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingreasoning
As a direct result of this experience, Gilcrease now requires approval from affiliated Native Nations before taking new images or sharing images of their cultural material on the public database.
“As a direct result of this experience, Gilcrease now requires approval from affiliated Native Nations(s) before taking new images or sharing images of their cultural material on the public database.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Items are occasionally identified as culturally sensitive that were previously unknown to staff and are then restricted from future research and access.
“Items are occasionally identified as culturally sensitive that were previously unknown to staff and are then restricted from future research and access.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
In 2017, Gilcrease was awarded an IMLS grant to support the cataloging, imaging, and digital publication of more than a thousand Native cultural materials related to Native Nations now based in Oklahoma.
“In 2017, Gilcrease was awarded an Institute of Museums and Library Science (IMLS) grant to support the cataloging, imaging, and digital publication of more than a thousand Native cultural materials related to Native Nations now based in Oklahoma.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
In 2009, the former IARC director, Cynthia Chavez Lamar, contacted the Pueblo of Zuni about a collection of 78 pottery items labeled 'Part of the IAF Collection of Zuni Pseudo-Ceremonial Pottery.'
“In 2009, the former IARC director, Cynthia Chavez Lamar, contacted the Pueblo of Zuni about a collection of 78 pottery items labeled “Part of the IAF Collection of Zuni Pseudo-Ceremonial Pottery.””
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
As an article resulting from the research was wending its way toward publication, RSPI hosted multiple consultations between tribal communities and the research team to discuss the issues.
“As an article resulting from the research was wending its way toward publication, RSPI hosted multiple consultations between tribal communities and the research team to discuss the issues.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingnone given
In 2018, RSPI permitted research on an item from the collection that had been previously identified as outside the scope of NAGPRA.
“In 2018, RSPI permitted research on an item from the collection that had been previously identified as outside the scope of NAGPRA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Many Native Nations do not have the capacity to review, respond to, or be involved in research proposals or requests.
“We have also consistently heard that many Nations do not have the capacity to review, respond to, or be involved in research proposals or requests.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Since 2009, the IARC has engaged in an extensive collection review process with multiple communities represented in the collection.
“Since 2009, it has engaged in an extensive collection review process with multiple communities represented in the collection.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The digitization grant had to be amended to decrease the number of items that would become available online.
“The digitization grant had to be amended to decrease the number of items that would become available online.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingcitation
Since 2021, the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology has required a letter of support from the appropriate descendant community before providing research access to any portion of the collection.
“Since 2021, the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology (RSPI) has required a letter of support from the appropriate descendant community before providing research access to any portion of the collection (Taylor 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Taylor 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingreasoning
Because consultation had not been the first step, some of the previously completed imaging and cataloging work needed to be restricted or destroyed.
“Because consultation had not been the first step, some of the previously completed imaging and cataloging work needed to be restricted or destroyed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Subsequently in 2018, Gilcrease received a NAGPRA Consultation & Documentation grant to conduct collections reviews and consultation with 15 Native Nations whose cultural material was included in the digitization project.
“Subsequently in 2018, Gilcrease received a NAGPRA Consultation & Documentation grant to conduct collections reviews and consultation with 15 Native Nations whose cultural material was included in the digitization project.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Changing RSPI's policy to a consent-based approach could not be done without participation from communities represented within its collection.
“Changing the policy to a consent-based approach could not be done without participation from communities that are represented within RSPI's collection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Institutional policies around research and access dictate the interactions between researchers and the collection.
“As the case studies illustrate, institutional policies around research and access dictate the interactions between researchers and the collection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Institutions and collectors mimicked successful collecting strategies such as those for natural history specimens and amassed large assemblages of Native cultural material.
“Institutions and collectors mimicked successful collecting strategies such as those for natural history specimens and amassed large assemblages of Native cultural material (Deloria 2018:107;Harjo 1989;Hinsley 1992;Redman 2021;Turner 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Recent federal regulations of NAGPRA have sought to change the power imbalance for Native ancestral human remains, funerary objects, and cultural items.
“Recent federal regulations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; Pub.L. 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013;104 Stat.3048-3058) have sought to change this power imbalance for Native ancestral human remains, funerary objects, and cultural items.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Pub.L. 101-601
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites 104 Stat.3048-3058
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
The Duty of Care provision within the 2024 revised NAGPRA regulations requires institutions to restrict access to cultural items, as defined by the law, for research without free, prior, and informed consent.
“The Duty of Care provision within the 2024 revised NAGPRA regulations requires institutions to restrict access to cultural items, as defined by the law, for research without “free, prior, and informed consent” (43 CFR §10.1(d)(3)).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites 43 CFR §10.1(d)(3)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationThis approach is becoming best practice within the museum field and will eventually become the academic standard.
“This approach is becoming best practice within the museum field and will eventually become the academic standard (Krupa and Grimm 2021;Marsh 2023;Roberts Thompson et al. 2023;Wheeler et al. 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Krupa and Grimm 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Marsh 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Roberts Thompson et al. 2023 source
The Conclusions say that other institutions already use similar collaborative approaches, and “Institutional Change” describes the Laboratory’s practices as a model for other university units. The paper advocates normalizing this engagement in curation, but it does not establish that it is becoming best practice across museums or predict that it will become an academic standard. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
It may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningAlthough the IMLS grant project's actions and priorities should have been developed with the affiliated Native Nations, the NAGPRA consultations and collections reviews still shaped the project's final form and fundamentally changed the operations and priorities of the Gilcrease Museum.
“Although the IMLS grant project's actions and priorities should have been developed with the affiliated Native Nations, the NAGPRA consultations and collections reviews still shaped the project's final form and fundamentally changed the operations and priorities of the Gilcrease Museum.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown dataThe full process to develop and enact RSPI's policy change took about nine months.
“The full process to develop and enact change took about nine months.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataNeither a plan nor funding for consultation was included in the 2017 Gilcrease digitization project.
“Unfortunately, neither a plan nor funding for consultation was included in this project.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingnone givenSmoother pathways for incoming research requests have been developed at the IARC.
“In addition, smoother pathways for incoming research requests have been developed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Findingnone givenMany Native Nations have a list of research projects and ideas awaiting eager scholars that would enrich understanding of cultural affiliation and intertribal relationships and their cultural revitalization efforts.
“In fact, we have learned that many Native Nations have a list of research projects and ideas awaiting eager scholars that would enrich understanding of cultural affiliation and intertribal relationships and their cultural revitalization efforts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningAlthough all internal policies in place at the time were followed, including a period of review and commentary by an external committee, consultation after the fact revealed that the research was inappropriate.
“Although all internal policies in place at the time were followed, including a period of review and commentary by an external committee, consultation after the fact revealed that the research was inappropriate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenGoals and outcomes were established between IARC staff and designated Zuni cultural advisers, and physical reviews continued intermittently for more than six years, with a data review process that followed for an additional three years.
“Goals and outcomes were established between the IARC staff and the designated Zuni cultural advisers, and physical reviews continued intermittently for more than six years, with a data review process that followed for an additional three years.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningUltimately, the article was published with a coauthored ethics statement, and all parties agreed that consultation was required prior to any future research.
“Ultimately, the article was published with a coauthored ethics statement, and all parties agreed that consultation was required prior to any future research.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningInvolving designated representatives of Native Nations in the early design and planning of subsequent projects has created more meaningful content, maintained deeper and more reciprocal relationships, and saved money and time.
“Involving designated representatives of Native Nations in the early design and planning of subsequent projects has created more meaningful content, maintained deeper and more reciprocal relationships, and saved money and time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningThese consultations were often challenging at first, because many Native Nations were upset that they had not been included from the outset and that some items had already been accessed and imaged.
“These consultations were often challenging at first, because many Native Nations were upset that they had not been included from the outset and that some items had already been accessed and imaged.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningImage requests now follow a parallel process to collections access requests and typically require a letter of support from the affiliated Native Nation(s).
“Image requests now follow a parallel process to collections access requests and typically require a letter of support from the affiliated Native Nation(s).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingnone givenThe initial invitation expanded into a review of the entire collection of 1,100 items from the Pueblo of Zuni.
“This initial invitation expanded into a review of the entire collection of 1,100 items from the Pueblo of Zuni.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Findingnone givenNative Nations want their perspectives, expertise, and cultural protocols to be respected and incorporated in the research of their cultural materials.
“Native Nations want their perspectives, expertise, and cultural protocols to be respected and incorporated in the research of their cultural materials.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningThose conversations yielded meaningful guidance on access and imaging protocols and led to several repatriations.
“Those conversations yielded meaningful guidance on access and imaging protocols and led to several repatriations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningThese conversations initiated long-lasting and mutual relationships that have led to repatriations and the collaborative development of exhibitions and other digitization projects.
“These conversations initiated long-lasting and mutual relationships that have led to repatriations and the collaborative development of exhibitions and other digitization projects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingnone givenOver the last 15 years, the collection review process has led to collaborative relationships between each community and the IARC staff.
“Over the last 15 years, the collection review process has led to collaborative relationships between each community and the IARC staff.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
InterpretationreasoningCollections access and research policies can establish ethical practices that elevate the protocols and priorities of descendant peoples and Native Nations.
“Collections access and research policies can establish ethical practices that elevate the protocols and priorities of descendant peoples and Native Nations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Institutions have the power to support and shift ethical access and research practices through meaningful changes to their policies.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationPolicies establish boundaries around what an institution is willing and able to enact and are tools to reinforce the foundation, mission, and goals of institutions.
“Policies establish boundaries around what an institution is willing and able to enact: they are tools to reinforce the foundation, mission, and goals of institutions (School for Advanced Research 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites School for Advanced Research 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
InterpretationreasoningIt can damage relationships and be offensive for a Native Nation to learn of research conducted on their cultural materials by attending a conference or receiving an advertisement for a lecture.
“It can damage relationships and be offensive for a Native Nation to learn of research conducted on their cultural materials by attending a conference or receiving an advertisement for a lecture.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Open access and research without regard for the cultural protocols and contexts of affiliated Native Nations reinforce the current power imbalance between those Native Nations and museums and academia.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationnone givenDetermining whether items were either pseudo-ceremonial or possibly ceremonial would affect access restrictions if research inquiries arose.
“Determining whether items were either pseudo-ceremonial or possibly ceremonial would affect access restrictions if research inquiries arose.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone givenThere can be no universal standard template for all institutions because the resources, capacity, collections, and relationships of each institution are unique.
“There can be no universal standard template for all institutions because the resources, capacity, collections, and relationships of each institution are unique.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningThe IARC collaborative process is not viewed as a NAGPRA consultation, but these conversations help inform approaches to culturally appropriate care, which vary among communities, and guide policy development.
“This collaborative process is not viewed as a NAGPRA consultation, but these conversations help inform approaches to culturally appropriate care, which vary among communities, and guide policy development.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningThe Duty of Care provision is forcing the reallocation of resources and creating internal pathways for decision-making for both Native Nations and institutions.
“The Duty of Care provision is forcing the reallocation of resources and creating internal pathways for decision-making for both Native Nations and institutions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Premisenone givenGilcrease's image-approval standard goes beyond Duty of Care, which does not offer protection for images or associated documentation and only applies to NAGPRA-eligible material.
“This standard goes beyond Duty of Care, which does not offer protection for images or associated documentation and only applies to NAGPRA-eligible material.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningA loophole in RSPI's previous policy led to the authorization of inappropriate research and highlighted the need for change.
“A loophole in the previous policy led to the authorization of inappropriate research and highlighted the need for change.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningConsultation is baked into the Duty of Care process because museums are rarely able to identify cultural items without tribal input.
“Consultation is baked into the process, because museums are rarely able to identify cultural items without tribal input.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningActive collaboration will result in stronger relationships and comprehensive research.
“Active collaboration will result in stronger relationships and comprehensive research.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Institutions have the power to support and shift ethical access and research practices through meaningful changes to their policies.
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationHistorical collecting practices are built on colonization and separated items from their cultural context through extractive actions.
“Historical collecting practices are built on the foundation of colonization, which separated items from their cultural context though extractive actions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningPartnering and collaborating with communities to conduct research strengthens projects and increases funding opportunities and mutual learning.
“Partnering and collaborating with communities to conduct research strengthens projects and increases funding opportunities and mutual learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Institutions have the power to support and shift ethical access and research practices through meaningful changes to their policies.
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationExhibitions of and research into Native collections were conducted about communities rather than in consultation with them, establishing institutions as experts rather than Native Nations.
“Exhibitions of and research into these Native collections were conducted about communities rather than in consultation with them, establishing the institutions as the experts rather than the Native Nations themselves (Atalay 2012;Lonetree 2012).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Atalay 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Lonetree 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningPolicy statements inform resource allocation, ensure that practices continue beyond individual employees, and hold the institution accountable to all constituents.
“Policy statements inform resource allocation, ensure that practices continue beyond individual employees, and hold the institution accountable to all constituents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Institutions have the power to support and shift ethical access and research practices through meaningful changes to their policies.
The paper relies on this without support.
Native Nations have rarely been respected and incorporated in research conducted by and at collecting institutions like museums and universities.
“Native Nations 1 have rarely been respected and incorporated in research conducted by and at collecting institutions like museums and universities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The central mission of many institutions that hold Native collections is to facilitate access to and learning from the items in their care.
“The central mission of many institutions that hold Native collections is to facilitate access to and learning from the items in their care.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Open access and research without regard for the cultural protocols and contexts of affiliated Native Nations reinforce the current power imbalance between those Native Nations and museums and academia.
“Open access and research without regard for the cultural protocols and contexts of affiliated Native Nations reinforce the current power imbalance between those Native Nations and museums and academia.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Institutions have the power to support and shift ethical access and research practices through meaningful changes to their policies.
“Institutions have the power to support and shift ethical access and research practices through meaningful changes to their policies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many Native Nations view images of sensitive items as requiring similar restrictions as physical items.
“However, many Native Nations view images of sensitive items as requiring similar restrictions as physical items.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most institutions already have standardized access and research request forms.
“Most institutions already have standardized access and research request forms, and these expectations can be integrated into those established procedures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Although researchers and museum staff want to respect the perspectives, expertise, and cultural protocols of Native Nations, too many other urgent priorities demand staff time.
“In addition, although researchers and museum staff want to respect the perspectives, expertise, and cultural protocols of Native Nations, too many other urgent priorities demand staff time.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
2023 in-text citation does not match the reference list
MinorThe text cites "Roberts Thompson et al. 2023," but the corresponding 2023 reference begins with Thompson, not Roberts Thompson. No Roberts Thompson entry appears in the reference list.
“(Krupa and Grimm 2021;Marsh 2023;Roberts Thompson et al. 2023;Wheeler et al. 2022)”
“15. Thompson, Amanda R., Victor D. Thompson, Carey J. Garland, RaeLynn A. Butler, Domonique deBeaubien, Panther Miranda, Turner Hunt, et al. 2023.”
Citations
Cites
Community-based archaeology: research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-4516 · Cited by 470
Decolonizing museums: representing Native America in national and tribal museums
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-5795 · Cited by 413
Redman, S. J. (2021) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674270015 · Cited by 51
Informed Consent: Documenting the Intersection of Bureaucratic Regulation and Ethnographic Practice
Shannon, J. A. (2007) · PoLAR Political and Legal Anthropology Review · doi:10.1525/pol.2007.30.2.229 · Cited by 25
The NAGPRA Nexus, Institutional Integrity, and the Evolving Role of Archaeological Laboratories
Roberts Thompson, A., Thompson, V. D., Garland, C. J., Butler, R. A., deBeaubien, D., Panther, M., Hunt, T., Wendt, L., Fontenot, R., Langley, L., et al. (2023) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2022.43 · Cited by 21
Digital Repatriation as a Decolonizing Practice in the Archaeological Archive
Krupa, K. L., & Grimm, K. T. (2021) · Across the Disciplines · doi:10.37514/atd-j.2021.18.1-2.05 · Cited by 18
The New World of the Indigenous Museum
Deloria, P. J. (2018) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/daed_a_00494 · Cited by 16
Marsh, D. E. (2022) · Archival Science · doi:10.1007/s10502-021-09378-9 · Cited by 16
Collecting Cultures and Cultures of Collecting: The Lure of the American Southwest, 1880‐1915
Hinsley, C. M. (1992) · Museum Anthropology · doi:10.1525/mua.1992.16.1.12 · Cited by 14
Wheeler, R., Arsenault, J., & Taylor, M. (2022) · Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals · doi:10.1177/15501906211072916 · Cited by 12
Self-citationShannon, J. A. (2019) · Museum Anthropology · doi:10.1111/muan.12201 · Cited by 6
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Turner, 2021, Cataloging Culture: Legacies of Colonialism in Museum Documentation
- Van Alst, 2024, Indigenizing Archaeology: Putting Theory into Practice
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Building a Foundation: A Retrospective on NAGPRA Collections Compliance 1990–1995
Sieg, L., & Neller, A. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10097 · Cited by 4
Pathways to Repatriation for NAGPRA Practitioners: Introduction
Yann, J., Domeischel, J., Roberts Thompson, A., & Schreiner, N. M. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10107 · Cited by 2
From Knowledge to Action: Next Steps for the Natural Science Collections Community
Ellwood, E. R., Nelson, G., Zimkus, B. M., Bates, J. M., Cook, J. A., Pandey, J., Sessa, E. B., Borths, M. R., Goodwin, J., Jennings, D., et al. (2026) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biag018 · Cited by 1
Incorporating Existing Archaeological Collections into Cultural Resource Management Mitigation
Herr, S., Bollwerk, E., Childs, S., Henderson, A. G., Olson, H. L., & Thompson, L. (2026) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2026.10178
Metadata
- Authors
- Bryant, L., Taylor, M., & Elliff Cruz, L.
- Affiliations
- Gilcrease Museum
- Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology (US)
- Indian Arts and Research Center at the School for Advanced Research
- Corresponding author
- Bryant, Laura
- ORCID
- Bryant, Laura
- Venue
- Advances in Archaeological Practice
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2025-07-15
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 432-440
- ISSN
- 2326-3768 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4412414489
- Semantic Scholar
- 02b5758fde78fce9512ff414b65d180d31e225c2
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Advances in Archaeological Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Keywords
- Indigenous collections, institutional research policy, NAGPRA, duty of care, Native nations, reciprocity, research ethics, research accessibility, Indigenous perspectives, museum collections, consent, trust building
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
