An Application of Two-Eyed Seeing to Community-Engaged Research With Indigenous Mothers
Open accessAbstract
The Two-Eyed Seeing framework advocates viewing the world with one eye grounded in Indigenous knowledges while the other eye is grounded in Westernized knowledges. Research funding bodies have recently advocated for its use in research with Indigenous peoples, yet its interpretation and application in the literature has been inconsistent. To contribute to its maturation as a framework, this article describes the application of Two-Eyed Seeing to a community-engaged study aimed at understanding how Indigenous mothers experience using health care to meet the health needs of their infants in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Two-Eyed Seeing was applied to the research while applying the four R’s as suggested by Kirkness and Barnhardt’s: relevance, respect, responsibility, and reciprocity. While providing practical applications of this framework to research with Indigenous mothers and infants in an urban off-reserve setting, this article also contributes an approach to data analysis that incorporates Indigenous and Western knowledges within interpretive description methodology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The 4Rs have been widely used and adapted in research.
“Although the 4Rs were initially designed as a framework to support and empower First Nations students in higher education, these principles have been widely used and adapted in research (Wright et al., 2019).”
From What we learned from the Nokomisag/Grandmothers: Adapting the 4 Rs for storytelling in Indigenous health research (2025) · cites this paper as Wright et al., 2019
Cites
Thorne, S. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315426259 · Cited by 859 · see citing works
Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque-Baxter, J., Kelly, E., Somers, G., Doig, L. E., Jones, P. D., et al. (2017) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rieger, K., Horton, M., Cook, L., Copenace, S., Bennett, M., Phillips-Beck, W., Buss, M., Chudyk, A., Hornan, B., Horrill, T., et al. (2025) · The International Indigenous Policy Journal · doi:10.18584/iipj.2025.16.2.18451 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wright, A. L., Gabel, C., Bomberry, R., & Wahoush, O.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Wright, A. L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-01-01
- Volume
- 18
- ISSN
- 1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2965724200
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Institute of Aboriginal Peoples Health (FN146613)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
- Keywords
- Two-Eyed Seeing, indigenous knowledge, community-engaged research, Indigenous mothers, infant health care, maternal health, urban Indigenous peoples, interpretive description
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