Explore the vast range of titles available.

For millennia Indigenous communities worldwide have maintained diverse knowledge systems informed through careful observation of dynamics of environmental changes. Although Indigenous communities and their knowledge systems are recognized as critical resources for understanding and adapting to climate change, no comprehensive, evidence-based analysis has been conducted into how environmental studies engage Indigenous communities. Here we provide the first global systematic review of levels of Indigenous community participation and decision-making in all stages of the research process (initiation, design, implementation, analysis, dissemination) in climate field studies that access Indigenous knowledge. We develop indicators for assessing responsible community engagement in research practice and identify patterns in levels of Indigenous community engagement. We find that the vast majority of climate studies (87%) practice an extractive model in which outside researchers use Indigenous knowledge systems with minimal participation or decision-making authority from communities who hold them. Few studies report on outputs that directly serve Indigenous communities, ethical guidelines for research practice, or providing Indigenous community access to findings. Further, studies initiated with (in mutual agreement between outside researchers and Indigenous communities) and by Indigenous community members report significantly more indicators for responsible community engagement when accessing Indigenous knowledges than studies initiated by outside researchers alone. This global assessment provides an evidence base to inform our understanding of broader social impacts related to research design and concludes with a series of guiding questions and methods to support responsible research practice with Indigenous and local communities.

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.

In this time of reconciliation, Indigenous researchers-in-relation are sharing research paradigms and approaches that align with Indigenous worldviews. This article shares an interpretation of the Mi’kmaw concept of Two-Eyed Seeing as the synthesis of Indigenous methodology and participatory action research situated within an Indigenous paradigm of relevant, reciprocal, respectful, and responsible research. Two-Eyed Seeing is discussed as a guiding approach for researchers offering Indigenous voices and ways of knowing as a means to shift existing qualitative research paradigms. The author offers practical considerations for conducting research with Indigenous peoples in a “good and authentic way.” Through the co-creation of knowledge with Indigenous communities, a collective story was produced as a wellness teaching tool to foster the transfer of knowledge in a meaningful way.

In the Spring of 2021, a research team from the Dalla Lana School of Public Health completed environmental scans on nine key health-related topics to develop an anti-Indigenous racism strategy for health systems in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. To ensure we (Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers) were respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, cultures, worldviews, and research methods, we weaved three frameworks of Indigenous values and principles together to create a conceptual foundation for undertaking the environmental scans. In discussions with First Nations Elders, Métis Senators, and our research team, we chose the Seven Grandfather Teachings (Anishinaabe, a specific First Nation's life values), Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit societal values), and the Métis Principles of Research. Further discussions provided insights for each of these guiding principles used in research projects with Indigenous peoples. Through this research, we created a weaved framework reflecting the three distinct Indigenous cultures in Canada; First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. The Weaved Indigenous Framework for Research was created for researchers to use as a guiding document as they embark upon health research with Indigenous communities. Inclusive, culturally responsive research frameworks are needed within Indigenous health research to ensure each culture can be respected and honored. •Weaved Indigenous Framework for Research was developed as a wholistic framework that encompassed First Nations, Métis and Inuit ways of knowing and being.•Existing First Nations, Métis and Inuit research principles and guidelines exist–OCAP, NAHO’s Six Principles of Métis Health Research and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit but are often not used together to ensure each group's ways of knowing and being are incorporated.•We provide an overview of First Nations, Métis and Inuit principles and teachings as we weave them together.•Each of these principles is based on interconnectedness, holism, and doing work in a good way.•The importance of a value-centric approach allows data to be collected, analyzed and disseminated respecting distinct Indigenous worldviews.

First Nations communities in Canada are disproportionately affected by poor water quality. As one example, many communities have been living under boil water advisories for decades, but government interventions to date have had limited impact. This paper examines the importance of using Indigenous research methodologies to address current water issues affecting First Nations. The work is part of larger project applying decolonizing methodologies to Indigenous water governance. Because Indigenous epistemologies are a central component of Indigenous research methods, our analysis begins with presenting a theoretical framework for understanding Indigenous water relations. We then consider three cases of innovative Indigenous research initiatives that demonstrate how water research and policy initiatives can adopt a more Indigenous-centered approach in practice. Cases include (1) an Indigenous Community-Based Health Research Lab that follows a two-eyed seeing philosophy (Saskatchewan); (2) water policy research that uses collective knowledge sharing frameworks to facilitate respectful, non-extractive conversations among Elders and traditional knowledge holders (Ontario); and (3) a long-term community-based research initiative on decolonizing water that is practicing reciprocal learning methodologies (British Columbia, Alberta). By establishing new water governance frameworks informed by Indigenous research methods, the authors hope to promote innovative, adaptable solutions, rooted in Indigenous epistemologies.

Background: The quality of healthcare experiences for Indigenous communities is worse when compared to non-Indigenous patients. Bias and discrimination within healthcare systems relate to worsened care and worsened health outcomes for Indigenous patients. The purpose of this study was to learn about the experiences of Indigenous people within healthcare settings, as well as their viewpoints for improving healthcare delivery to this population. Methods: Indigenous research methods were employed in this study as clinic administrators and staff, elders, and Indigenous researchers collaborated on the study purpose, design, and analysis. Twenty Indigenous patients participated in one of four focus groups regarding their experiences with healthcare systems. Results: Seven main themes emerged, highlighting participants’ experiences during health encounters, in relation to healthcare systems, and Indigenous health beliefs. Participants discussed challenges and barriers in each area and offered recommendations for care delivery to this population. Conclusions: Participants in this study highlighted that biased care results in poor quality of healthcare delivery and that there are actionable steps that providers and systems of healthcare can take to reduce bias within healthcare systems. The provision of culturally congruent care is imperative in improving the health and well-being of Indigenous communities.

Treatment fidelity remains underreported in health intervention research, particularly among Indigenous communities. One explanation for this gap is the lack of culturally consonant strategies listed in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) treatment fidelity framework, the gold standard for understanding and measuring fidelity. This paper focuses on the development and implementation of a culturally consonant treatment fidelity support plan across two of the five BCC fidelity areas, provider training and treatment delivery, within a chronic illness self-management program for the Apsáalooke (Crow) Nation. Our team selected and adapted strategies from, and added strategies to, the BCC framework, that centered on relational accountability and the Apsáalooke culture. To be culturally consonant, we approached treatment fidelity as supporting Aakbaabaaniilea (Apsáalooke program facilitators) rather than monitoring them. This resulted in the development of a fifth treatment fidelity area: building and fostering relationships. We propose that fidelity to relational accountability is the foundation of successful programs in Indigenous communities. This suggests an important shift from tracking what was conducted in an intervention to prioritizing how things were conducted. We encourage others to view the BCC framework as a starting point in developing fidelity strategies that are consonant with local cultures.

Internationally within academia settler-colonial processes occur in various ways alongside a growth in the use of research methods conceived with Indigenous knowledges. However, most research environments and practices are built upon and privilege dominant non-Indigenous settler-colonial knowledge systems. It is within this power imbalance and contested space that Yarning research method is being applied and interpreted. Underpinned by an Indigenous Research Paradigm, we employed storying ways to examine researcher experiences of settler-colonialism and the Yarning research method. The story outlines challenges and pitfalls that researchers can fall into and critically examines how researchers can fail to recognise the depth of Indigenous knowledge embedded within the practice. This story is gifted by creating an imagined narrative interview with a character called Settler-Colonisation, whereby we identify a litany of settler-colonial processes impacting Yarning research. Scrutinising the epistemological and methodological practices and processes enacted in academia is imperative for better-informed application of Indigenous research methods and create sustainable research more generally.

In this paper, we highlight the centrality of process in Indigenist community-based participatory research in music education to offer new methodological insights, using a recent investigation that employed conference as research method as a case study. From our perspective as university researchers who are non-Indigenous or Indigenous but not to the land now known as Canada, we describe in detail the process of co-creating a conference grounded in local First Nations Protocols as a research method for our most recent study with Indigenous partners, also showing how the process is related to ceremony. This knowledge creation and sharing conference involved more than 200 Knowledge Keepers, School District Indigenous leaders, and music educators in British Columbia endeavouring to effectively embed Indigenous knowledge in K-12 music classes. We highlight ways we found to be relationally accountable, including providing adequate time to arrive at consensus in all decisions; developing and maintaining trust throughout pandemic lockdowns and restrictions; and locating additional sources of funding to facilitate all Protocols, which led Indigenous participants to report feeling that the conference was a culturally safe place and non-Indigenous participants to report that they found it to be a culturally immersive experience. We became more aware that the very process of discussion and decision making that took place at the many committee and subcommittee meetings leading up to the conference was part and parcel of the ceremonial aspect of this research. Indigenous participants deemed the outcomes and effects of the research/conference credible and trustworthy because they emerged from a planning process that was culturally informed and that had been deemed ethical, legitimate, and appropriate by all planning parties through consensus.

Qualitative research methods have treated Western knowledge systems and Indigenous studies as polar opposites with asymmetrical power relations. Studies have documented the hegemonic dominance of Western science over Indigenous knowledge systems. Despite this tension, there is an opportunity to integrate Western science with Indigenous knowledges to bridge these discordant systems. This paper argues that Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT), a Western-based version of grounded theory can be weaved with Indigenous research. CGT’s emphasis on co-construction, relationality, value-free inquiry, and social justice align with Indigenous research principles. Using examples from both CGT and Indigenous scholarship, the paper argues that CGT with its pragmatist and constructivist orientation can exist alongside an Indigenous research agenda. Furthermore, the flexible, emergent, and relativist nature of CGT aligns with some aspects of Indigenous research. The paper demonstrates that both knowledge systems can be treated on an equal par, engender methodological reciprocity and provide mutual benefits to each other. Weaving CGT and Indigenous research might provide new avenues of thinking about doing research with Indigenous communities and other marginalized communities.