CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Indigenous Health, Education, and RightsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law

A New Era of Indigenous Research: Community-based Indigenous Research Ethics Protocols in Canada

Open access
Hayward, Ashley, Sjoblom, Erynne, Sinclair, Stephanie, Cidro, Jaime·2021·Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
DOI 10.1177/15562646211023705PMC PMC8458667
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Indigenous communities across Canada have established principles to guide ethical research within their respective communities. Thorough cataloging and description of these would inform university research ethics boards, researchers, and scholars and facilitate meaningful research that respects Indigenous-defined ethical values. A scoping study was conducted of all relevant peer-reviewed literature and public-facing Indigenous research ethical guidelines from First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities and organizations in Canada. A total of 20 different Indigenous research ethics boards, frameworks, and protocols were identified. Analysis resulted in three key themes: (1) balancing individual and collective rights; (2) upholding culturally-grounded ethical principles; and (3) ensuring community-driven/self-determined research. Findings demonstrate how employment of Indigenous ethical principles in research positively contributes to research outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/15562646211023705

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on/with Indigenous peoples has often been based on deficit and discriminatory thinking that has reified white privilege and systemic racism.

    “All too often, research on/with Indigenous peoples has been based on deficit and discriminatory thinking that has reified white privilege and systemic racism (Hayward et al., 2021).”

    From Following Their Voices Supporting Indigenous Students' Learning by Fostering Culturally Sustaining Relational Pedagogies to Reshape the School and Classroom Environment (2022) · cites this paper as Hayward et al., 2021

    The Introduction’s ‘History of Research in Indigenous Contexts’ section says research has often used Western-based measures that focus on deficits and can reinforce discrimination and marginalization. The Discussion also says knowledge production has reproduced colonial relations and perpetuated racial prejudices. These passages support most of the paraphrase, but they do not specifically establish that the research reified white privilege. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Bird-Naytowhow K. Hatala A. R. Pearl T. Judge A. Sjoblom E. (2017). Ceremonies of relationship: Engaging urban Indigenous youth in community-based research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1– 14. 10.1177/1609406917707899 · DOI
  2. Brunger F. Bull J. (2011). Whose agenda is it? Regulating health research ethics in Labrador. Études/Inuit/Studies, 35(1-2), 127– 142. 10.7202/1012838ar · DOI
  3. Carrese J. A. Rhodes L. A. (1995). Western bioethics on the Navajo reservation: Benefit or harm? JAMA, 274(10), 826– 829. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530100066036 7650807 · DOI
  4. Castellano M. (2004). Ethics of aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 98– 114. 10.3138/ijih.v1i1.28935 · DOI
  5. Castleden H. Morgan V. S. Lamb C. (2012). “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 56(2), 160– 179. 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Champagne D. (2015). Centering Indigenous nations within Indigenous methodologies. Wicazo Sa Review, 30(1), 57– 81. 10.5749/wicazosareview.30.1.0057 · DOI
  7. Chattopadhyay S. De Vries R. (2008). Bioethical concerns are global, bioethics is Western. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics: EJAIB, 18(4), 106– 109. 10.1007/s11019-012-9433-5. 19593391 PMC2707840 · DOI
  8. Copenace S. Cidro J. Johnson A. Anderson K. (2021). Auntie's Bundle: Conversation and research methodologies with Knowledge Gifter Sherry Copenace. In B. Hokowhitu, A. Moreton-Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C. Andersen, & S. Larkin, Routledge Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies (pp.189-202). New York: Routledge.
  9. Cram F. Chilisa B. Mertens D. M. (2013). The journey begins. In Mertens D. M. Cram F. Chilisa B. (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research: Voices of a New generation (pp. 11– 40). Leaf Coast Press Inc.
  10. Dingwall R. (2008). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty-First Century Society, 3(1), 1– 12. 10.1080/17450140701749189 · DOI
  11. Dingwall R. (2012). How did we ever get into this mess? The rise of ethical regulation in the social sciences. Studies in Qualitative Methodology, 12, 3– 26. 10.1108/S1042-3192(2012)0000012004 · DOI
  12. Dingwall R. (2016). The social costs of ethics regulation. In van den Hoonaard W. C. Hamilton A. (Eds.), The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review (pp. 25– 52). University of Toronto Press.
  13. Glass K. C. Kaufert J. (2007). Research ethics review and aboriginal community values: Can the two be reconciled? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 25– 40. 10.1525/jer.2007.2.2.25 19385793 · DOI
  14. Hammond C. Gifford W. Thomas R. Rabaa S. Thomas O. Domecq M. C. (2018). Arts-based research methods with Indigenous peoples: An international scoping review. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 14(3), 260– 276. 10.1177/1177180118796870 · DOI
  15. Hart M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1): 1– 16. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/15117
  16. Hatala A. R. (2008). Spirituality and aboriginal mental health: An examination of the relationship between aboriginal spirituality and mental health. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 23(1), 6– 12. 20664135
  17. Hatala A. R. Bird-Naytowhow K. (2020). Performing pimâtisiwin: The expression of Indigenous wellness identities through community-based theater. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 34(2), 243– 267. 10.1111/maq.12575 32329108 · DOI
  18. Hedgecoe A. (2016). Reputational risk, academic freedom and research ethics review. Sociology, 50(3), 486– 501. 10.1177/0038038515590756 27330226 PMC4887816 · DOI
  19. Iwama M. Marshall M. Marshall A. Bartlett C. (2009). Two-eyed seeing and the language of healing in community-based research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 32(2), 3– 23.
  20. Juengst E. T. (2000). Commentary: What “community review” can and cannot do. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 28(1), 52– 54. 11067633
  21. Kaufman C. E. Ramarao S. (2005). Community confidentiality, consent, and the individual research process: Implications for demographic research. Population Research and Policy Review, 24(2), 149– 173. 10.1007/s11113-004-0329-9 · DOI
  22. Kildea T. Kumar M. (2018). Aboriginal spirituality and its relationship to the positioning of research. In Kumar M. Pattanayak S. (Eds.), Positioning research: Shifting paradigms, interdisciplinarity and indigeneity (pp. 196– 213). SAGE.
  23. Kirkness V. J. Barnhardt R. (1991). First nations and higher education: The four R’s - respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1– 15. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from Assembly of First Nations, https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education2/the4rs.pdf
  24. Kovach M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.
  25. Kovach M. (2010). Conversation method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review; 5(1), 40– 48.
  26. Latimer M. Simand D. Finley A. Rudderham S. Harman K. Young S. Francis J. (2014). Understanding the impact of the pain experience on aboriginal children’s wellbeing: Viewing through a two-eyed seeing lens. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 9(1), 22– 37. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Latimer M. Young S. Dell C. Finley G. A. (2012). Aboriginal children and physical pain: What do we know? Journal of Aboriginal Health, 9(1), 7– 14. 10.3138/ijih.v9i1.29016 · DOI
  28. Lavallée L. F. (2009). Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: Sharing circles and Anishinaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21– 40. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690900800103 · DOI
  29. Levac D. Colquhoun H. O’Brien K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69), 1– 9. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 20854677 PMC2954944 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Magnat V. (2012). Can research become ceremony? Performance ethnography and Indigenous epistemologies. Canadian Theatre Review, 151, 30– 36. 10.3138/ctr.151.30 · DOI
  31. Mair M. (2011). Deconstructing behavioural classifications: Tobacco control, ‘professional vision’ and the tobacco user as a site of governmental intervention. Critical Public Health, 21(2), 129– 140. 10.1080/09581596.2010.529423 · DOI
  32. Manitoulin Anishinaabek Research Review Committee. (2003). Guidelines for ethical aboriginal research. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://www.noojmowin-teg.ca/images/GEAR_-_FINAL.pdf
  33. Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI. (2019). Mi’kmaq confederacy ethics review committee terms of reference. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from http://mcpei.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MCPEI-Ethics-Review-Committee-TOR-Updated-22-Mar-2019.pdf
  34. Nelson S. E. Wilson K. (2017). The mental health of Indigenous peoples in Canada: A critical review of research. Social Science & Medicine, 176, 93– 112. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.021 28135694 · DOI
  35. Ober R. (2007). Kapiti time: Storytelling as a data collection method in Indigenous research. International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, 22, 8– 15. 10.18793/LCJ2017.22.02 · DOI
  36. Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres. (2016). USAI Research framework. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://ofifc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/USAI-Research-Framework-Second-Edition.pdf
  37. Piquemal N. (2000). Four principles to guide research with aboriginals. Policy Options, 21(10), 49– 51.
  38. Poudrier J. (2007). The geneticization of aboriginal diabetes and obesity: Adding another scene to the story of the thrifty gene. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 44(2), 237– 261. 10.1111/j.1755-618X.2007.tb01136.x · DOI
  39. Restoule J. P. (2008). The values carry on: Aboriginal identity formation of the urban-raised generation. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(2), 15– 33.
  40. Schrag Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  41. Simonds V. W. Christopher S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to Indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185– 2192. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157 23678897 PMC3828951 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Stark L. (2012). Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of research ethics. University of Chicago Press.
  43. Styres S. Zinga D. (2013). The community-first land-centred theoretical framework: Bringing a ‘Good Mind’ to Indigenous education research? Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 284– 313. Retrieved from https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1315.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hayward, A., Sjoblom, E., Sinclair, S., & Cidro, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba (CA)
  • The University of Winnipeg (CA)
Corresponding author
Hayward, Ashley
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-06-09
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
403-417
ISSN
  • 1556-2646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-2654
DOI
10.1177/15562646211023705
PMC
PMC8458667
OpenAlex
W3167649636
Cited by
140
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
9.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Keywords
Indigenous research ethics, First Nations, Métis, Inuit, self-determination (international law), individual and collective rights, research ethics guidelines, indigenous peoples
MeSH terms
Canada, Humans, Ethics, Research

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.

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