“I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community‐based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples

Abstract

Community‐based participatory research (CBPR) is generally understood as a process by which decision‐making power and ownership are shared between the researcher and the community involved, bi‐directional research capacity and co‐learning are promoted, and new knowledge is co‐created and disseminated in a manner that is mutually beneficial for those involved. Within the field of Canadian geography we are seeing emerging interest in using CBPR as a way of conducting meaningful and relevant research with Indigenous communities. However, individual interpretations of CBPR's tenets and the ways in which CBPR is operationalized are, in fact, highly variable. In this article we report the findings of an exploratory qualitative case study involving semi‐structured, open‐ended interviews with Canadian university‐based geographers and social scientists in related disciplines who engage in CBPR to explore the relationship between their conceptual understanding of CBPR and their applied research. Our findings reveal some of the tensions for university‐based researchers concerning CBPR in theory and practice.

Developing Ethical Research Practices Between Institutional and Community Partners: A Look at the Current Base of Literature Surrounding Memorandums of Understanding in Canada

“…This culturally diverse population share a historically negative relationship with research (Ten Fingers, 2005). Past research practices illustrate two common trends (Stiegman & Castleden, 2015): the dismissal of Indigenous knowledge as "unscientific" and ultimately of limited value (Castleden, Morgan, & Lamb, 2012;Kovach, 2009), and a lack of transparency about research intent (Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit, 2009). Perhaps the most prolific example comes from the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people where investigators took 885 blood samples under the auspices of carrying out research to explore the high rate of arthritis in their nation (Hawkins & O'Doherty, 2011).…”

“…Lack of formal regulating body. Indigenous partners have historically been awarded considerably less power in the research process (Castleden et al, 2012). Without a formal regulating body, institutional researchers are not required to consult with Indigenous partner in the early stages of development such as applying for ethics (although many do), positioning institutional partners as primary researchers and experts in the field (Castleden et al, 2012).…”

“…Recall that access to funding, control over data, the incorporation of cultural values and protocols, and a lack of formal regulating bodies were all challenges restricting the full participation of Indigenous partners in collaborative research. Creating a standardized MOU practice is one method of equalizing the research process between partners by setting parameters for addressing these challenges, increasing Indigenous partner participation and control over the research process (Castleden et al, 2012;Espey, 2002;Restoule et al, 2015;Ten Fingers, 2005), while still appreciating institutional partner concerns.…”

“…Thus, partnering with research institutions and using an MOU presents an opportunity to access funding and other resources (Rowley, 2013;Styres et al, 2010). Some examples of MOU protocols found for addressing spending responsibilities and funding allocation included hiring and training community members as researchers (Castleden et al, 2012;Czaykowska-Higgins, 2009), reciprocity such as gifts and sharing of meals to thank participants (Ball & Janyst, 2008;Castleden et al, 2012), and other protocols related to financial security and responsibility of cost (Parry et al, 2009;Restoule et al, 2015).…”

“…It can lead to increased accountability for the Indigenous partner (Schnarch, 2004), the development of community capacity through direct monetary and skills-based benefits (Cargo & Mercer, 2008;Castleden, et al, 2012;Meijer Drees, 2001), and strengthen community interest and participation (Martin et al, 2006).…”