Changing the Subject: Individual versus Collective Interests in Indian Country Research

Barriers and Strategies Related to Qualitative Research on Genetic Ancestry Testing in Indigenous Communities

“…As mentioned earlier, the call for more responsible research practices in tribal communities stems from a history of irresponsible and harmful research practices against Indigenous communities (Bowekaty & Davis, 2003; Burhansstipanov et al, 2002; Christopher et al, 2011; Harding et al, 2012; Kelley et al, 2013; Morton et al, 2013; Strickland, 2006). The challenge is that local mechanisms of community review do not always coincide with prevailing models of institutional review recognized by many Universities and federal funding agencies that privilege individual consent over community risk (Champagne & Goldberg, 2005; Foster & Sharp, 2000). The primacy of the individual in the standard research process (e.g.…”

“…Christopher et al, 2011; Harding et al, 2012; Kelley, Belcourt-Dittloff, Belcourt, & Belcourt, 2013; Morton et al, 2013; Strickland, 2006). The challenge is that local mechanisms of community review do not always coincide with prevailing models of institutional review recognized by many universities and federal funding agencies that privilege individual consent over community risk (Champagne & Goldberg, 2005; Foster & Sharp, 2000). The primacy of the individual in the standard research process (e.g., study size defined by number of participating individuals , human subjects consenting as individuals , etc.)…”

You Have to EARN Access: A Case Study of Arizona Tribes and Reporting about Indigenous Religion around the Pacific Rim

“…Also, it must be acknowledged that this article is written by a journal ist and journalism educator for a journal about journalism and media practitioners and educators, and not for an indigenous audience. How ever, there is a rising, booming call from other areas of the academylike indigenous studies-for researchers and other information gatherers to take more care to consider the wishes of those being researched (Champagne & Goldberg, 2005;Chilisa, 2012;Grenier, 1998). Another critique is that researchers often are more individually minded and indig enous peoples can be more community minded and so, human subjects regulations are necessary to address misunderstandings and unbalanced power (Champagne & Goldberg, 2005).…”

Sharing the private in public

“…As pointed out by Turtle Mountain Chippewa scholar Duane Champagne and Carole Goldberg, [7] the strength of individual rights (delineated by the Bill or Rights for U.S. citizens and by the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) for Native Americans) makes the enforcement of tribal group rights "notoriously difficult." Champagne & Goldberg explain further that individual rights are given precedent in Indian country due to the lack of jurisdiction over non-tribal members [26] and because of ICRA's emphasis of protecting individual's prerogatives, even when these prerogatives violate community wishes.…”

“…7 Councilman McCarty also noted that the Makah elders decided to allow photography during certain 'public' songs, to restrict video and audio recording of family songs, and decided to limit the songs shared to those communally owned by the Makah people as a community. By singing the public songs and not family songs, the community limited the access to the family songs to non-Makah people.…”