Cited by 315Indigenous Health, Education, and RightsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsParticipatory Visual Research Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 46 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Indigenous Research Methods: A Systematic Review

Open access
Drawson, Alexandra S, Toombs, Elaine, Mushquash, Christopher J.·2017·International Indigenous Policy Journal

Abstract

Indigenous communities and federal funding agencies in Canada have developed policy for ethical research with Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous scholars and communities have begun to expand the body of research regarding their peoples, and novel and innovative methods have begun to appear in the published literature. This review attempts to catalogue the wide array of Indigenous research methods in the peer-reviewed literature and describe commonalities among methods in order to guide researchers and communities in future method development. A total of 64 articles met inclusionary criteria and five themes emerged: General Indigenous Frameworks, Western Methods in an Indigenous Context, Community-Based Participatory Research, Storytelling, and Culture-Specific Methods.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review catalogues peer-reviewed Indigenous research methods and identifies commonalities to guide future method development. From 2,310 initial records, 64 articles met inclusion criteria and five themes emerged: General Indigenous Frameworks, Western Methods in an Indigenous Context, Community-Based Participatory Research, Storytelling, and Culture-Specific Methods.

Key findings

  • The review identified five themes across 64 included articles: General Indigenous Frameworks, Western Methods in an Indigenous Context, Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), Storytelling, and Culture-Specific Methods.
  • Across all five themes, the authors state that each Indigenous research method had three components: contextual reflection; respectful, reciprocal, decolonizing inclusion of Indigenous Peoples that preserves self-determination; and prioritization of Indigenous ways of knowing.
  • The authors conclude that using an Indigenous method necessitates an Indigenous methodology, but an Indigenous methodology could be used with strictly Western methods, provided the Indigenous community involved determines preferred direction and approaches.
  • Culture-specific methods included Kaupapa Māori, Tobacco Ties, talking circles, Sharing Circles, Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection, Two-Eyed Seeing, Dadirri, Sikolohiyang Pilipino methods, talanoa and faafaletui, and halaqah.

Methods

  • Systematic review. Searches used Academic Search Premier, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Bibliography of Native North Americans, CINAHL, ERIC, Indigenous Studies Portal, Native Health Database, NIICHRO, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, from December 30, 2015 to February 16, 2016.
  • Search terms included variations such as Indigen* method*, Indigen* research*, Aborigin* method*, First Nation* research*, Métis research*, Inuit research*, tribal research*, Native research*, and Indian research*. Initial searches yielded 2,310 articles; 269 were retained by title/abstract review; 64 met inclusion criteria.
  • Inclusion was limited to English-language articles. The authors purposefully did not define “Indigenous” before selecting studies, used an inductive approach, and did not implement a quality assessment procedure. Analysis by two researchers produced five themes.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the authors did not implement a quality assessment procedure because the study purpose was to investigate methods rather than results, and most studies would have received a “weak” rating and been removed because most quality assessment tools favour randomized controlled trial designs.
  • Stated in the paper: the authors did not specify a definition of “Indigenous” prior to selecting studies, purposefully, to allow an inductive approach; only English articles were considered; and the review focused predominantly on Canadian Indigenous ethical policy through explicit search terms for recognized Indigenous Peoples in Canada.
  • Evident from the text: because methods were included if identified as Indigenous by their users regardless of context, and because no formal quality appraisal was conducted, the review cannot establish the comparative effectiveness or methodological strength of the catalogued methods.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.5

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 46 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 40 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
38 of 38
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Indigenous Peoples, even those from the same location or group, are diverse.

    “the authors recognize that Indigenous Peoples, even those from the same location or group, are diverse.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Any method or framework that an author determined to be Indigenous is appropriately classified as Indigenous for the purposes of the review.

    “The authors of this article also purposefully did not define”
2 of 2

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.720732 · DOI
  2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.00054 · DOI · Paper page
  3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.04.007 · DOI · Paper page
  4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-397 · DOI · Paper page
  5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12061 · DOI · Paper page
  6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026174 · DOI
  7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2013.815754 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Wilson, D. D., & Restoule, J-P. (2010). Tobacco ties: The relationship of the sacred to research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 33(1), 29–45. Retrieved from http://iportal.usask.ca/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 315

Metadata

Authors
Drawson, A. S., Toombs, E., & Mushquash, C. J.
Affiliations
Lakehead University (CA)
Venue
International Indigenous Policy Journal
Published
2017-03-10
Volume
8
Issue
2
ISSN
1916-5781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2609831456
Cited by
315
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Indigenous Policy Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (acceptedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
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
Indigenous research methods, Indigenous research ethics, indigenous knowledge, community-based participatory research, storytelling, indigenous peoples

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 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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