Paths and Pitfalls in Contemporary Aboriginal Child

Welfare Research~

H. Monty Montgomery (MSW, PhD.) URegina Faculty of Social Work

Philosophical Bases for Contemporary Research Enlightenment era Euro-American philosophy underpins many contemporary

social structures, politics, legal systems, academia, etc. Human (adult male)centered, Individualism, Private property, Nuclear Family

focus, Professional Classifications, Scientific Method of Inquiry, Positivism. Non-Western, Women’s, Indigenous ways of knowing were/are considered as

standing apart from the ‘normal’ ways of doing things (if considered at all). Indigenous belief systems embrace respect, reciprocity and collectivity

(Deloria, 2004), they are language and place based (Battiste & McConaghy), they reflect a relational ethic and sensibility (Ermine, 1995; Wilson, 2008) and are marked by oral nature of transmission through story (Hart, 2002).

Although traditional practices have been much disrupted by Settler actions, Indigenous rights and belief systems are still legitimate frameworks.

Colonised narratives abound - Indigenous and Settler alike.

“We are all marinated in colonialism.” (Battiste, 2005)

Social Reforms and Research with Indigenous peoples1. Academia has become more open to alternative ways of creating new knowledge: Qualitative research designs (e.g., constructivist, transformative, pragmatic) have become accepted as legitimate in the social sciences - greater interdisciplinarity. Increasingly more Indigenous philosophers, theorists, researchers employed by academic institutions. (although >1% nationally, CAUT, 2011)2. Civil and Human Rights advocacy created space for Indigenous Rights issues to enter into legal discourses. (e.g., UNDRIP, Haida v. BC, 2004) Indigenous groups have created mechanisms to reduce unethical data collection in communities.3. Information Revolution has smashed barriers to data collection,sharing & analysis.Case management software has altered child welfare practice, but FN Agencies have largely not been ‘early adopters”. (financial + practice model differences)

Indigenous Methodologies flow from and are guided by an Indigenous Knowledge Paradigm. (Wilson, 2008, Kovach, 2009)

Indigenous Knowledge or Indigenous Epistemology (Ermine, 1995) guides Indigenous Methodologies.

Indigenous Knowledges are founded in Indigenous law (Felix, 2015)

 Postpositivist

 Constructivist

 Transformative

 Pragmatic

 Quantitative;Empirical;

 

 Qualitative;

Phenomenology;Ethnography; etc. 

 

 Critical Theory;

Feminist;Critical Race Theory; etc. 

 Mixed Methods

from Mertens, 2005. p.8

Indigenous Methodologies

from Kovach, 2009. p. 31

1 - Situating Indigenous Methodologies and Western Research Paradigms

Indigenous Inquiries & Areas of Curiosity As Indigenous peoples increasingly pursue graduate education, many have been drawn to qualitative research designs.Alignment with Indigenous epistemological methods - storytelling, community-based projects, action research, relational methods.

Mixed methods (Western - Indigenous Methodologies) research designs are becoming more common in Canada, Commonwealth and USA. Tri-Council funding has supported some doctoral research and academic inquiry projects using Indigenous Methodologies.

In child welfare, qualitative theses and dissertations by Indigenous students have focused on Indigenous people’s experiences with adoption, identity formation, program design, customary practices, media reportage.Quantitative graduate researchers whose research documents disparities – e.g., mental health, addictions, FASD rates – need to ensure findings do not create/sustain narratives that pathologize Aboriginal communities.

2 - Ethical Dimensions of Research involving Indigenous individuals & communitiesMany university-based Research Ethics Boards have instituted specific criteria for research involving Indigenous communities by students & faculty. Indigenous academics or elders are infrequently represented.

Due to historic experiences with unethical research, most Indigenous communities distrust researchers. “Research ... is probably one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world’s vocabulary.” (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2003)

Outdated funding models and chronic underdevelopment cause many Indigenous communities and organizations to place a low priority on participating in scholarly or applied research. “The old order of research - positivist, empirical, and driven by the agenda of the academy, has not served Indigenous populations whose interests are currently geared towards surviving and thriving through self-determination and control of resources including cultural and knowledge resources.” (Indigenous People’s Health Research Centre, 2004 p. 9)

Research EthicsFrameworks

Tri-council policy for research with Indigneous Peoples

OCAP principles – Ownership, Control, Access and Possession

Inuit-specific perspectives on research & research ethics

USAI – utility, self-voicing, access and interrelationality

Tri-council policy for research with Indigneous Peoples

Encourages Indigenous capacity building. Applicable to a wide variety of research designs (e.g.,

quantitative, community-based, qualitative) Indigenous knowledges and traditional knowledge holders

are respected Mechanisms for community control and access to

data/findings are to be considered

“Building reciprocal, trusting relationships will take time.”

The policy framework that guides University-based REB review for all SSHRC, CIHR & NSERC applications that involve Indigenous peoples in Canada and Internationally.

OCAP Principles

Ownership - members of an Indigenous community collectively own their cultural knowledge, data and information.

Control - Indigenous communities aim to gain and maintain oversight over all aspects of information management.

Access - individuals have the right to access information about themselves and their own Nation. Indigenous communities have the right to decide about access to collective information.

Possession - physical possession of data facilitates the assertion and protection of ownership and control.

OCAP principles were addressed in the 2008 Canadian Incidence Study

In 2004 , the Assembly of First Nations sanctioned the National Aboriginal Health Organization OCAP principles for ethical research with Indigenous peoples.

Inuit-specific perspectives on research and research ethics

Inuit communities seek to retain access to and control over cultural knowledge, data and information.

Access to Inuit Knowledge holders and lands frequently requires that prospective researchers obtain permits/licenses – this takes time.

Projects should be designed to honour Inuit knowledge holders and create opportunities/mechanisms for knowledge co-creation.

Generally Inuit knowledge cannot be owned, because Inuit Knowledges derive from the land and the land cannot be owned.

The Inuit Tuttarvingat has developed a set of principles that to guide researchers considering projects in Inuit hamlets and among Inuit populations.

USAI Principles

Utility - research is practical, relevant and directly benefits communities Self-voicing – research, knowledge and practice is authored by

commuities that are fully recognized as knowledge holders/creators. Access – all local knowledge, practice, and experience in all their cultural

manifestations is accessible by all research authors and knowledge holders Interrelationality - Research is historically-situated, geo-politically

positioned, relational, and explicit about the perspective from which knowledge is generated.

“USAI research is envisioned as a culturally-appropriate, methodical and practical inquiry in the service of urban Aboriginal communities, conducted by those very communities so that they can nurture their capacity to self-actualize and realize only those futures that they themselves conceive.”

The National Association of Indigenous Friendship Centres developed this framework to better explore issues of interest to urban Aboriginal populations.

3. Technology enabled Data Analysis

Historically, Child Welfare practice documentation recorded in physical files only consisted of hand printed court forms, transcribed case notes, imprest cheques stubs, intake forms, etc. First Nations Agencies that did not emerge until the 80’s/90’s still largely follow this model of record keeping. Funding models have not kept pace with technological innovation. First Nations Agency records fall under different legislative parameters for confidentiality and retention than Provincially empowered Agencies. Access to Provincial Agency databases varies, depending on the terms of delegation agreements, and few Agencies have staff who can analyse data.Internet connectivity, hardware and tech support issues in remote villages.Just because it is technologically possible to collect and analyse digital data does not mean that it is ethical to do so, especially without informed consent.

“Researchers are ethically responsible for obtaining informed consent, accurately representing the cultural perspective and protecting the cultural integrity and rights of

all involved in a research endeavor.” (AANE. 2001,p.15)

Better Aligning data analysis with policy development and practice. Data analysis undertaken using Western methods will inevitably lead to

Western recommendations, policies and practices.

Findings that have been guided by an Indigenous Knowledge paradigm will lead to solutions that will be more culturally appropriate.

Relationship-building takes time (i.e., much more than a full-term majority government election cycle).

New stories need to be crafted together - this can benefit from an honest truthtelling.

Capacity-building is necessary for Indigenous communities and individuals to participate meaningfully in all phases of research (e.g., design, collection, analysis, dissemination)

“It is very basic, but if people aren’t even aware of it and they try to accomplish things with Native people and they don’t succeed, it is probably because they

have botched the initial protocol.” (Kakwirakeron & Good. 2000 p.2)

References

Assembly of Alaska Native Educators. (2001). Guidelines for respecting cultural knowledge. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. Anchorage: AK.

Battiste, M., & McConaghy, C. (2005). Introduction: Thinking places: Indigenous humanities and education. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 34, 156-161. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, (2007). CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People. Retrieved from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29134.htm.

Deloria Jr., V. (2004). Philosophy and the Tribal Peoples. In Anne Waters (Ed). American Indian thought: Philosophical essays (pp. 3-11).Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing

Ermine, W. (1999). Aboriginal epistemology. In M. Battiste (Ed.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds, 101-112. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Hart, M. (2002). Seeking Mino-pimatisiwin. An Aboriginal approach to helping. Halifax: Fernwood.

Indigenous People’s Health Research Centre. (2004). Report to the Canadian Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. In Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, ON.

Inuit Tuttarvingat (2010). Inuit-specific perspectives on research and research ethics. Retrieved from: http://www.naho.ca/documents/it/2010_Ethics_Research_presentation.pdf

Kakwirakeron & Good, D. (2000). First Nations protocol: Working with First Nations. Frontlines. Eskasoni, NS: First Nations Environmental Network.

References (2)

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: ON: University of Toronto Press.

Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp.77-86). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

OFIFC (2012). USAI research framework. Retrieved from: http://www.ofifc.org/sites/default/files/docs/USAI%20Research%20Framework%20Booklet%202012.pdf

Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP)or self-determination applied to research: a critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 80-94.

Smith, L. T. (2003). Decolonizing methodologies. London, UK: Zed Books

Steinhauer, P. (2001). Situating myself in research. Canadian journal of native education 25(2): 183–7.

Thomas-Prokop, S., Felix, A.J., Felix, P., Kovach, M. & Montgomery, H. (in press). Saskatchewan First Nations: Researching ourselves back to life. In H. Montgomery, D. Badry, D. Fuchs & D. Kikulwe (eds) Child welfare transofrmations: Voices from the Prairies. Regina: University of Regina Press.  Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Press. 

FN-CIS First Nations Advisory Committee Process Knowledgeable individuals nominated from Provincial

organizations with proven record for supporting First Nations child & family service agencies.

Quarterly telephone meetings co-ordinated by University research team; annual face-to-face meeting.

Input into survey design; Provide context to analysis; Assist in data presentation; Review material before it is distributed; Participate in dissemination activities; Review requests for secondary analysis