CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Ethics in Clinical ResearchIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law

Tribal IRBs: A Framework for Understanding Research Oversight in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities

Open access
Around Him, Deana, Andalcio Aguilar, Temana, Frederick, Anita, Larsen, Heather, Seiber, Michaela, Angal, Jyoti·2019·American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research
DOI 10.5820/aian.2602.2019.71PMC PMC13251331
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Tribal Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other entities that oversee research for American Indians and Alaska Natives are important and unique. They reflect and respond to community needs, changes in research, and revisions to research policy. We provide a framework to capture this dynamism by building on existing work and offering a way to describe the scope of entities that oversee tribal research. As federal research regulations are revised, and policies are developed in response to a rapidly advancing research landscape, it is critical that policy makers, IRB professionals, researchers, and tribal communities have clarity regarding the Tribal IRB.

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 · 10.5820/aian.2602.2019.71

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • Many Indigenous authorities exert jurisdiction over people, places, issues, interests, and rights both within settler colonial defined geographic boundaries and beyond.

    “Many Indigenous authorities exert jurisdiction over people, places, issues, interests, and rights both within settler colonial defined geographic boundaries and beyond (Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment, 1996; South African San Institute, 2017; Around Him et al., 2019; Centre for Sami Health Research (CSHR), 2019; National Khoisan Council, 2019; Karuk-UC Berkeley Collaborative, 2020; Kuhn et”

    From Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance (2023) · cites this paper as Around Him et al., 2019

    The Geographic and Structural Jurisdiction section describes Tribal IRBs’ oversight within reservation boundaries and their consideration of research involving members just outside them. It also says establishing and enforcing jurisdiction beyond tribal lands is difficult; it does not establish that many Indigenous authorities exercise the broad, cross-boundary jurisdiction claimed. The Content-Specific Jurisdiction section supports oversight of varied research topics, but the paper addresses research oversight rather than jurisdiction over rights and interests generally. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Other Native nations rely on tribal colleges, tribal organizations, or the Indian Health Service to provide research oversight on their behalf.

    “Other Native nations rely on tribal colleges, tribal organizations, or the Indian Health Service to provide research oversight on their behalf (Around Him et al., 2019).”

    From Using Indigenous Standards to Implement the CARE Principles: Setting Expectations through Tribal Research Codes (2022) · cites this paper as Around Him et al., 2019

  • Indigenous Peoples in the US have established various review mechanisms to approve research in their communities and with their citizens.

    “Indigenous Peoples in the US have established various review mechanisms to approve research in their communities and with their citizens (Around Him et al., 2019; Kuhn et al., 2020).”

    From Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance (2023) · cites this paper as Around Him et al., 2019

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: 12

  1. California Rural Indian Health Board. (n.d.-b). CRIHB Institutional Review Board. Retrieved from https://crihb.org/institutional-review-board/
  2. Clark C (2016, March 30). Choctaw Institutional Review Board safeguards the Nation’s interests in research. Choctaw Nation.com News & Events. Retrieved from https://www.choctawnation.com/news-events/press-media/choctaw-institutional-review-board-safeguards-nations-interests-research
  3. Crazy Bull C (1997). A Native conversation about research and scholarship. Tribal College Journal, 9(1). Retrieved from https://tribalcollegejournal.org/native-conversation-research-scholarship/
  4. Fixico DL (1980). Termination and relocation: Federal Indian Policy in the 1950’s (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11244/4767
  5. Fort Peck Institutional Review Board. (n.d.). Institutional Review Board: Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes. Retrieved from http://www.fortpeckirb.org/
  6. LaFrance J, & Crazy Bull C (2009). Researching ourselves back to life: Taking control of the research agenda in Indian Country. In Mertens DM & Ginsber PE (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics (pp. 135– 149). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  7. Maloney DM (1984). Protection of human research subjects: A practical guide to federal laws and regulations. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  8. Mariella P, Brown E, Carter M, & Verri V (2009). Tribally-driven participatory research: State of practice and potential strategies for the future. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 3(2), 41– 58. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/jhdrp/vol3/iss2/
  9. Office of the Surgeon General, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institute of Mental Health. (2001). Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnicity-A supplement to mental health, A report of the Surgeon General - Executive summary. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/ 20669516
  10. Southwest Tribal Native American Research Center for Health (NARCH). (n.d.). Southwest Tribal NARCH: Establishment of Southwest Tribal Institutional Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.mynarch.net/SW_Tribal_IRB.aspx
  11. Swisher KG (1992). From passive to active: Research in Indian Country. Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 4(3). Retrieved from https://tribalcollegejournal.org/passive-active-research-indian-country/
  12. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. (2002). Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Tribal Code: Title 1-General Provisions, Chapter 1–10 Research Regulation. Retrieved from https://ctclusi.org/assets/57f698b2c9e22cf96e000003.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Around Him, D., Andalcio Aguilar, T., Frederick, A., Larsen, H., Seiber, M., & Angal, J.
ORCID
Angal, Jyoti
Venue
American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research
Publisher
Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health
Published
2019
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
71-95
ISSN
  • 0893-5394 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-7731
DOI
10.5820/aian.2602.2019.71
PMC
PMC13251331
OpenAlex
W2976248008
Cited by
40
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UG1OD030019)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (U54MD008164)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Keywords
research oversight, American Indian and Alaska Native communities, research ethics, federal research regulations, community-based research, research governance
MeSH terms
Alaska Natives, Alaskan Natives, Humans, Indians, North American, Ethics Committees, Research, American Indian or Alaska Native, Minority Health, Community-Based Participatory 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