Deliberative democracy and historical perspectives on American Indian/Alaska native political decision-making practices

Reedy, Justin; Orr, Raymond; Spicer, Paul; Blanchard, Jessica W.; Hiratsuka, Vanessa Y.; Ketchum, Terry; Saunkeah, Bobby; Wark, Kyle; Woodbury, R. Brian

doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0506-4

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, foregrounding plurality also invites exploring how possible courses of action presented in the literature reviewed in this paper may intersect: to open up the political and contestable nature of the issues at hand, to create space for dissensus thereon, and to explore alternative solution pathways [110]. As a consequence, traditional governance interventions may need to give way to more pluriform, reflexive and adaptive forms of governance [111][112][113][114]. Overall, foregrounding plurality would allow for challenging and transgressing the very ways of thinking and doing that may have played a role in the emergence of the problem(s) at hand in the first place.…”

Section: From Universality To Plurality: Opening Up To a Wider Diversity Of Voicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring, Diversifying and Debating Sustainable Health (Care) Approaches

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today’s sustainability challenges have major implications for human health and health care. At the same time, the way health care is organized and conducted has major sustainability implications. Sustainable health and sustainable health care approaches in research, which engage with health and sustainability as intertwined phenomena, feature increasingly prominently in various literatures, i.e. (i) literature based on the premise of ‘(un)healthy environments result in (un)healthy people’ (e.g., planetary health); (ii) literature on the implications of ecological change for the sustainability of healthcare systems; and (iii) literature on healthcare systems’ sustainability in view of a range of socio-economic factors. However, an integrative elaboration of the manifold relationships between health and sustainability challenges in these literatures is currently lacking. This review paper therefore maps how these three literatures represent intertwinements between health and sustainability challenges, as well as their suggestions to address these challenges. In addition, we explore which themes and questions are pertinent, meaning they have remained largely unaddressed. By performing a qualitative mapping review, we find that calls for structural attention to inequality, to in-and exclusion, and to stakeholder needs and perspectives cut across these three literatures. Furthermore, we identify three cross-cutting key questions that require future research attention. First, how do divergent ideas on what is and divergent ideas on how can that be known give rise to different health- and sustainability visions and pathways? Second, what do abstract problem statements and solutions presented in agenda-setting work look like in practice in specific and diverse empirical contexts across the globe? And third, how are diverse health and sustainability dynamics historically and spatially interconnected? Moreover, we observe that some voices have so far remained largely silent in scientific debates on health and sustainability intertwinements, namely non-expert voices such as patients and citizens, voices from a variety of social scientific and humanities disciplines, voices from relevant domains beyond (environmental) health, and voices from the global South (from non-experts, social scientific and humanities researchers and domains beyond health). We conclude that a focus on inclusive and equitable engagement with intertwined health- and sustainability challenges is imperative. This requires moving away from developing universal knowledge to address generic problems, to foregrounding plurality in terms of problem statements, knowledge, solutions, and the values embedded therein.

show abstract

Section: From Universality To Plurality: Opening Up To a Wider Diversity Of Voicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring, Diversifying and Debating Sustainable Health (Care) Approaches

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deliberations can yield informed and egalitarian discussions and are particularly valued by members of some minority groups ( Gastil et al, 2010 ; Goold et al, 2005 ; Knobloch et al, 2013 ; Wang et al, 2015 ), but until now there has been little work that examines public deliberation exclusively in Indigenous contexts ( Carson et al, 2013 , Reedy et al, 2020a ). Our work in deliberation became a feasible approach for engagement and dialogue in AI/AN contexts only through a coordinated process of melding disciplinary expertise with mutual learning and cooperation across all sites.…”

Section: Balancing Local Priorities and Collective Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Sharing, Capacity Building, and Evolving Roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research

Blanchard¹,

Hiratsuka²,

Beans³

et al. 2020

Collaborations: A Journal of Community-Based Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persistent, unresolved issues stemming from a legacy of scientific exploitation and bio-colonialism have kept many tribal nations from participating in genomic research. The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research (CEIGR) aims to model meaningful community engagement that moves toward more inclusive and equitable research practices related to genomics. This article reflects on key successes and challenges behind CEIGR's efforts to shape Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) research in ways that are informed by Indigenous perspectives, to locate community partnerships at the center of genomics research, and to conduct normative and empirical research with Indigenous communities that is grounded in the concepts of reciprocity, transparency and cultural competency. The structure of CEIGR represents an important shift away from a traditional model centered on a university-based principal investigators toward a partner-centered research approach that emphasizes equity and community control by distributing power and decision-making across all CEIGR partner sites. We discuss three features of CEIGR that have contributed to this shift towards an equitable, community-driven partnership: 1) balancing local priorities with collective goals; 2) distributing power in ways that promote equitable partnerships; and 3) capacity building and co-learning across partner sites. The discussion of these three areas in this article speaks to a particular strength of our Center: the interdependence among partners and collective willingness to maintain a plasticity of leadership that creates space for all of our partners to lead, support, exchange and strengthen ELSI research.

show abstract

“…The Caddo tribe's aboriginal homeland ranged from the Red River border between what are now states of Oklahoma and Texas, and to Louisiana, up to Arkansas (National Park Service, 2021). Caddo tribal leadership met in grass structures; the Iroquois are named for their structures of meeting: "People of the Longhouses" (Kannonsionni), a confederacy of The Six Nations, or Haudenosaunee (Reedy et al, 2020). These six distinct nations include the Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Onandaga and later, the Tuscarora.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%