No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
A Two-eyed seeing approach to research ethics review: An Indigenous perspective.
... Embedding Two-Eyed Seeing into the Two Row Wampum framework facilitates Indigenous -led research that is ethically and philosophically aligned with Indigenous worldviews (Peltier, 2018, p. 2). In the shared space of peace, friendship and respect within which the canoe (Indigenous knowledge, ways of knowing and being) and the boat (western knowledge, ways of knowing and being) navigate, the space of Two-Eyed Seeing is a shared, overlapping space in which the strengths, complementarities and challenges of each (Indigenous and western ways of knowing) are applied to practice (Bull, 2016) (see Figure 3). It is a space of divergence and convergence between each way of knowing and being that yields a more wholistic understanding of the phenomena being researched (Bull, 2016;Ermine et al., 2004). ...
... In the shared space of peace, friendship and respect within which the canoe (Indigenous knowledge, ways of knowing and being) and the boat (western knowledge, ways of knowing and being) navigate, the space of Two-Eyed Seeing is a shared, overlapping space in which the strengths, complementarities and challenges of each (Indigenous and western ways of knowing) are applied to practice (Bull, 2016) (see Figure 3). It is a space of divergence and convergence between each way of knowing and being that yields a more wholistic understanding of the phenomena being researched (Bull, 2016;Ermine et al., 2004). This ethical space of Two-Eyed Seeing provides safety for distinct cultures, worldviews, and knowledge systems to engage in an ethical/moral manner focused on facilitating substantial and sustained understandings between each way of knowing and being (Ermine, 2007, p. 20). ...
... This ethical space of Two-Eyed Seeing provides safety for distinct cultures, worldviews, and knowledge systems to engage in an ethical/moral manner focused on facilitating substantial and sustained understandings between each way of knowing and being (Ermine, 2007, p. 20). Power is centered in Indigenous communities, institutions and organizations and community research protocols are posited, community advisory committees formed and interactions, engagement and reciprocity in knowledge exchange encouraged (McGregor et al., 2018, p. 6;Bull, 2016;Ermine et al., 2004). Researchers and communities work within this ethical space in an emergent process moving from initial conversations and dialogue with all participants about their underlying intentions, values and assumptions towards agreement on the research process that facilitates amicable partnerships and research dissemination strategies that bridge the ways knowing and being of researchers and Indigenous communities (Ermine, 2007, p. 20). ...
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore Indigenous Works’ efforts to facilitate Indigenous-led research that is responsive to the socio-economic needs, values and traditions of Indigenous communities.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper is grounded in an Indigenous research paradigm that is facilitated by Indigenous-led community-based participatory action research (PAR) methodology informed by the Two Row Wampum and Two-Eyed Seeing framework to bridge Indigenous science and knowledge systems with western ones.
Findings
The findings point to the need for greater focus on how Indigenous and western knowledge may be aligned within the methodological content domain while tackling a wide array of Indigenous research goals that involve non-Indigenous allies.
Originality/value
This paper addresses the need to develop insights and understandings into how to develop a safe, ethical space for Indigenous-led trans-disciplinary and multi-community collaborative research partnerships that contribute to community self-governance and well-being.
... The TCPS-2 emphasized community engagement prior to embarking on specific research projects with those communities (Tri-Council, 2022). In many documents written by Indigenous researchers (Ermine et al., 2004;First Nations Centre, 2005Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nunavut Research Institute, 2006;Bull, 2010Bull, , 2016; Métis Centre of National Aboriginal Health Organization, 2011), relationship building is framed as something that should occur prior to design development and institutional approval. Investigators must see their projects as being both community-based and "community-paced" (First Nations Centre, 2007). ...
The international context of Indigenous mental health and wellbeing has been shaped by a number of key works recognizing Indigenous rights. Despite international recognitions, the mental health and wellness of Indigenous Peoples continues to be negatively affected by policies that ignore Indigenous rights, that frame colonization as historical rather than ongoing, or that minimize the impact of assimilation. Research institutions have a responsibility to conduct ethical research; yet institutional guidelines, principles, and policies often serve Indigenous Peoples poorly by enveloping them into Western knowledge production. To counter epistemological domination, Indigenous Peoples assert their research sovereignty, which for the purposes of this paper we define as autonomous control over research conducted on Indigenous territory or involving Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous sovereignty might also be applied to research impacting the landscape and the web of animal and spiritual lives evoked in a phrase such as “all my relations.” This narrative review of material developed in the Canadian context examines the alignment with similar work in the international context to offer suggestions and a practice-based implementation tool to support Indigenous sovereignty in research related to wellness, mental health, and substance use. The compilation of key guidelines and principles in this article is only a start; addressing deeper issues requires a research paradigm shift.
... First, in the last several decades, the field of research ethics has been radically impacted by the contributions of Indigenous scholars and community members who have sought to change the nature of ethics review within their communities (Bull 2016). Through an intimate familiarity with the ways in which research can be harmful as well as helpful, and the assumptions that imbue colonial forms of knowledge production, many within Indigenous communities have brought a unique and advantageous standpoint to the domain of research ethics. ...
... Community authorities may be Elders, traditional teachers and healers, municipal or tribal leaders, local or regional Indigenous There is general agreement that in research where an entire community may be negatively implicated even if only few people from the community participate, individual consent is necessary but not sufficient (Burgess & Brunger, 2000;Kaufert et al., 2004;Weijer et al., 1999). Likewise, there is general agreement that individual informed consent is not sufficient for ethical health research involving Indigenous peoples (Brunger & Weijer, 2007;Bull, 2016;Moore, 2015). Given the intimacy of health information, and the small size of some communities, health research in particular can present genuine risks for socially identifiable populations (Weijer et al., 1999). ...
... Claims to a right to control research have also been made by indigenous groups seeking to protect themselves from outside influences, from losing what they regard as sacred knowledge, and from providing information that could be used to harm them. The usual grounds for gaining this power are the idea of a right to protect one's culture (see Bull, 2016). Such rights are sometimes enshrined in regulations and laws. 2 The pressure for such regulation stems from the view that much previous research has been exploitative, reflecting relations with the dominant culture more generally. ...
It is widely assumed that researchers must normally secure informed consent from participants if research is to be ethical. But what exactly are people being asked to consent to? Most obviously, it is to supplying, or providing access to, data; but are they also agreeing that this data can be used in any way relevant to the research, or do they retain a right to control its use? A third question is: are they consenting to themselves being included within the focus of study, so that asking for consent amounts to assigning a right not to be researched? A further question concerns whether there can be group rights not to supply data, to control the use of data, and/or not to be researched? Such claims have been made by spokespersons for the disabled, indigenous groups, commercial organisations, governments, and religious cults. Justifications for these various rights usually appeal to the principle of autonomy, in one form or another. Yet this principle, being universal, must also apply to researchers themselves. So, does this imply that researchers have a right to carry out research? As this makes clear, there are conflicting rights-claims around research. This paper will examine these and their implications.
... In 2010, NCC led a federally funded project research project that aimed to revise and implement a robust research governance structure and to examine the nuances of research governance in complex communities. From 2010 to 2013, NCC developed a rigorous structure of research review [21] and disseminated the processes and outcomes in various places [16,[22][23][24][25] (Figure 1). These efforts culminated in the formation of the NCC RAC which is currently comprised of 6 members: 2 community members, 2 academics and 2 community members who are also academics. ...
Some of the world’s most southern Inuit populations live along central and the southeastern coast of Labrador in the territory of NunatuKavut and are represented by the NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC). Southern Inuit and NCC staff have been actively collaborating with researchers and research ethics boards since 2006 on research ethics and the governance of research in NunatuKavut. As self-determining peoples, Southern Inuit, like many Indigenous communities, are reclaiming control of research through a number of highly effective community consent contracts and ethical review processes and protocols. These community-driven research agreements have both shaped, and been shaped by, academic writings on the issue of collective consent to research. This case report describes the evolution of NCC research governance from 2006 to 2018, emphasising the ethics and engagement that is required to conduct research with Southern Inuit or within the territory of NunatuKavut.
... Zealand and elsewhere. In some jurisdictions, indigenous communities and authorities assess the applications of researchers who apply to conduct research on their territories (see Bull, 2016). We would agree that this is justified and welcomed if it is conceived of as a part of self-determination for indigenous peoples. ...
Freedom of information (FOI) requests are increasingly used in sociology, criminology and other social science disciplines to examine government practices and processes. University ethical review boards (ERBs) in Canada have not typically subjected researchers’ FOI requests to independent review, although this may be changing in the United Kingdom and Australia, reflective of what Haggerty calls ‘ethics creep’. Here we present four arguments for why FOI requests in the social sciences should not be subject to formal ethical review by ERBs. These four arguments are: existing, rigorous bureaucratic vetting; double jeopardy; infringement of citizenship rights; and unsuitable ethics paradigm. In the discussion, we reflect on the implications of our analysis for literature on ethical review and qualitative research, and for literature on FOI and government transparency.
... Zealand and elsewhere. In some jurisdictions, indigenous communities and authorities assess the applications of researchers who apply to conduct research on their territories (see Bull, 2016). We would agree that this is justified and welcomed if it is conceived of as a part of self-determination for indigenous peoples. ...
Walby, K. and Luscombe, A. ‘Ethics Review and Freedom of Information Requests in Qualitative Research’. Forthcoming with Research Ethics
This article brings a philosophical perspective to bear on issues of research ethics governance as it is practiced and organized in Canada. Insofar as the processes and procedures that constitute research oversight are meant to ensure the ethical conduct of research, they are based on ideas or beliefs about what ethical research entails and about which processes will ensure the ethical conduct of research. These ideas and beliefs make up an epistemic infrastructure underlying Canada's system of research ethics governance, but, we argue, extensive efforts by community members to fill gaps in that system suggest that these ideas may be deficient. Our aim is to make these deficiencies explicit through critical analysis by briefly introducing the philosophical literature on epistemic injustice and ignorance, and by drawing on this literature and empirical evidence to examine how injustice and ignorance show up across three levels of research ethics governance: research ethics boards, regulations, and training. Following this critique, and drawing on insights from the same philosophical tradition, we highlight the work that communities across Canada have done to rewrite and rework how research ethics as a site of epistemic resistance is practiced.
To our readers: I close my editorial responsibilities with Teaching and Learning by implementing an editor’s prerogative to include in this issue selected passages from an article by Raven Sinclair. As an advocate for social justice within indigenous communities Raven continues to make strides within transformational challenge opportunities by implementing participatory action research in settings that require intervention and social change. I was introduced to this article by a friend of hers at a conference I attended on aboriginal issues in education. The message contained therein has influenced my work as a teacher, counsellor, professor, researcher and storyteller. Unfortunately space does not permit a full reprint of Ravens article. I have tried to carefully select passages that do justice to the intent and message without disrupting the flow. In my life as a storyteller I borrow to share not claim to own. For the complete article and list of references refer to the web site described at the end.
As genetic research increasingly focuses on communities, there have been calls for extending research protections to them. We critically examine guidelines developed to protect aboriginal communities and consider their applicability to other communities. These guidelines are based on a model of researcher-community partnership and span the phases of a research project, from protocol development to publication. The complete list of 23 protections may apply to those few non-aboriginal communities, such as the Amish, that are highly cohesive. Although some protections may be applicable to less-cohesive communities, such as Ashkenazi Jews, analysis suggests substantial problems in extending these guidelines in toto beyond the aboriginal communities for which they were developed.
In Labrador, the NunatuKavut (formerly Labrador Inuit Métis) have begun to introduce a rigorous community-based research review process. We conducted a study with leaders and health care workers in and beyond the NunatuKavut community of Labrador, asking them what should be emphasised in a community review. We also sought to identify whether and how community review should be distinct from the centralised, “institutional” research ethics review that would be the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador’s impending provincial health research authority. In this article we report on our findings with the aim of providing strategies and direction for researchers, research ethics boards, and Aboriginal communities dealing with dual-level ethics review. We argue for the adoption and use of a consistent label for community review of research (“Community Research Review Committee”) as distinct from research ethics boards. We provide suggestions for the development of separate roles and responsibilities for community review of research to ensure that its tasks are clearly understood and delineated. Our objective is to promote a form of community research review, distinct from the “ethics” review of research ethics boards, that explicitly attends to research in the context of ongoing colonialism, assimilation, and exoticism.
Gaining access to Native American communities can be a major challenge for social work researchers. This paper discusses some of the reasons why access may be difficult and how researchers can begin to address these challenges. The principles of conducting culturally competent research in Native American communities are demonstrated using case examples. Examples illustrate techniques for soliciting and maintaining the cooperation of reservation and urban Native American communities for research projects. The challenges of conducting a large scale needs assessment with an off-reservation Native American population in an urban area are discussed.
Gaining access to Native American communities can be a major challenge for social work researchers. This paper discusses some of the reasons why access may be difficult and how researchers can begin to address these challenges. The principles of conducting culturally competent research in Native American communities are demonstrated using case examples. Examples illustrate techniques for soliciting and maintaining the cooperation of reservation and urban Native American communities for research projects. The challenges of conducting a large scale needs assessment with an off-reservation Native American population in an urban area are discussed.
Indigenous methodologies are an alternative way of thinking about research processes. Although these methodologies vary according to the ways in which different Indigenous communities express their own unique knowledge systems, they do have common traits. This article argues that research on Indigenous issues should be carried out in a manner which is respectful and ethically sound from an Indigenous perspective. This naturally challenges Western research paradigms, yet it also affords opportunities to contribute to the body of knowledge about Indigenous peoples. It is further argued that providing a mechanism for Indigenous peoples to participate in and direct these research agendas ensures that their communal needs are met, and that geographers then learn how to build ethical research relationships with them. Indigenous methodologies do not privilege Indigenous researchers because of their Indigeneity, since there are many ‘insider’ views, and these are thus suitable for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers. However, there is a difference between research done within an Indigenous context using Western methodologies and research done using Indigenous methodologies which integrates Indigenous voices. This paper will discuss those differences while presenting a historical context of research on Indigenous peoples, providing further insights into what Indigenous methodologies entail, and proposing ways in which the academy can create space for this discourse.
Recent ethics guidelines and policies are changing the way health research is understood, governed, and practiced among Aboriginal communities in Canada. This provides a unique opportunity to examine the meanings and uses of such guidelines by Aboriginal communities themselves. This qualitative study, conducted in Labrador, Canada, with the Innu, Inuit, and Inuit-Metis, examined how communities and researchers collaborate in a co-learning environment whereby mutual interests and agendas are discussed and enacted throughout the entire research process-a process referred to an authentic research relationship. The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) Why are authentic research relationships important? (2) What is authenticity in research? (3) How do we achieve authenticity in research with Aboriginal peoples? This shift to more wholistic methodologies can be used in various contexts in Canada and internationally. This is the first study by an Aboriginal person to examine the perspectives of Aboriginal people, in an Aboriginal context, using Aboriginal methodologies.
We examine Kwara‘ae (Solomon Islands) indigenous epistemology and indigenous critical praxis, including sources of knowledge and strategies for validating and critiquing evidence and knowledge construction. To illustrate indigenous epistemology in action, we focus on the Kwara‘ae Genealogy Project, a research effort by rural villagers aimed at creating an indigenous written account of Kwara‘ ae culture. In recording, (re)constructing, and writing Kwara‘ae culture, project members are not only doing indigenous epistemology, but also reflecting on and critiquing their own indigenous strategies for knowledge creation. We hope that the work illustrated here will inspire other Native Pacific Islander scholars to carry out research on their native or indigenous epistemologies.
Specific ethical guidelines for working with Indigenous Peoples have been adopted by several research institutions. Ethical principles aim at promoting cooperation and mutual respect between researchers and communities of Indigenous Peoples. These principles are meant to be continually assessed. This article reports on the content and format of current ethical guidelines and highlights directions for further development.Key words: ethical guidelines, Indigenous Peoples, research agreement, collaborative studies.
The International Workshop "Ethical Issues in Health Research among Circumpolar Indigenous Peoples" was held in Inuvik on June 2-3, 1995 (1). Its purpose was to bring together researchers, representatives of aboriginal organizations and First Nations leaders to discuss problems in the current ethical review process and to develop new frameworks which would increase community participation in the research process. The paper summarizes some of the ethical and political issues involved in developing such frameworks. It describes developments which have occurred since the Inuvik workshop reflecting the changing process of ethical review and new relationships between researchers, participants and aboriginal communities.
Although philosophies and practices analogous to bioethics exist in Aboriginal cultures, the terms and categorical distinctions of "ethics" and "bioethics" do not generally exist. In this article we address ethical values appropriate to Aboriginal patients, rather than a preconceived "Aboriginal bioethic." Aboriginal beliefs are rooted in the context of oral history and culture. For Aboriginal people, decision-making is best understood as a process and not as the correct interpretation of a unified code. Aboriginal cultures differ from religious and cultural groups that draw on Scripture and textual foundations for their ethical beliefs and practices. Aboriginal ethical values generally emphasize holism, pluralism, autonomy, community- or family-based decision-making, and the maintenance of quality of life rather than the exclusive pursuit of a cure. Most Aboriginal belief systems also emphasize achieving balance and wellness within the domains of human life (mental, physical, emotional and spiritual). Although these bioethical tenets are important to understand and apply, examining specific applications in detail is not as useful as developing a more generalized understanding of how to approach ethical decision-making with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal ethical decisions are often situational and highly dependent on the values of the individual within the context of his or her family and community.
In this paper, we discuss and critically evaluate the National Health and Medical Research Council's recently released document entitled 'Draft Values and Ethics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research'. We provide a brief account of its development, philosophy and contents, and then consider how the document could be used by HRECs. We recommend that three specially targeted documents be developed from this one document, to meet the particular needs of HRECs, Indigenous people and researchers. We propose a system of Indigenous ethics advisors as a way to implement the central ideas of the new draft guidelines, without falling into the legalism and rule-following that these guidelines explicitly aim to avoid.
Two-Eyed Seeing Science Curricula Paper presented at the Community Education Strategic / Operational Planning Symposium for " Language and Culture " of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, 11 Mar
- Cheryl Bartlett
- Albert Marshall
Bartlett, Cheryl, and Albert Marshall. (2010). " Two-Eyed Seeing Science
Curricula. " Paper presented at the Community Education Strategic /
Operational Planning Symposium for " Language and Culture " of Mi'kmaw
Kina'matnewey, 11 Mar., Dartmouth, NS,.
An Essay about Indigenous Methodology Process and Principles for Developing a Canadian Governance System for the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans
- Jessica Porsanger
- Brian
Porsanger, Jessica. (1999). " An Essay about Indigenous Methodology. " http://
munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/906/article.pdf
PRE (Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics). (2002). Process and
Principles for Developing a Canadian Governance System for the Ethical Conduct
of Research Involving Humans. http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/index.cfm
Schnarch, Brian. (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 14 (16): 80–95.
CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples: Draft for Consultation Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)
CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research). (2007). CIHR Guidelines for
Health Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples: Draft for Consultation. http://
www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29134.html
CIHR et al. (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada). (1998, with 2000, 2002, 2005
amendments). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans. Ottawa, ON: Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics.
Tsawalk: A Nuu-Chah-Nulth worldview
- E Atleo
- Richard
Atleo, E. Richard. (2004). Tsawalk: A Nuu-Chah-Nulth worldview. Vancouver:
UBC Press.
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada Saskatoon: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP32-85-2002E.pdf Deloria, Vine
– (2010). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving
Humans. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Interagency Panel on Research Ethics.
Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada and Roy J. Romanow.
(2002). Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada. (Romanov
Report). Saskatoon: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP32-85-2002E.pdf
Deloria, Vine. (1991). " Commentary: Research, Redskins, and Reality. "
American Indian Quarterly 15 (4): 457–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1185364
Background Paper on Issues of Group, Community or First Nation Consent in Health Research. Working Paper commissioned by the Aboriginal Ethics Policy Development Project and Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Ethics Office and Institute for Aboriginal Peoples Health
- Joseph M Kaufert
- C Kathleen
- William L Glass
- Lisa Labine Freeman
Kaufert, Joseph M., Kathleen C. Glass, William L. Freeman, and Lisa LaBine.
(2004). Background Paper on Issues of Group, Community or First Nation Consent
in Health Research. Working Paper commissioned by the Aboriginal Ethics
Policy Development Project and Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Ethics Office and Institute for Aboriginal Peoples Health, 110:26.
Participatory Action Research and Aboriginal Epistemology Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
- Raven Sinclair
- Linda
Sinclair, Raven. (2007). " Participatory Action Research and Aboriginal
Epistemology. " Teaching and Learning 4 (2). http://www.
aboriginalsocialwork.ca/special_topics/par/epistemology.htm
Smith, Linda. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. New York: Zed Books.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
- Northern Indian
- Affairs
Indian and Northern Affairs. (1996). "Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples." http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html http://
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071115053257/
Towards Deep Subjectivity
- Roger Poole
Poole, Roger. (1972). Towards Deep Subjectivity. New York: Harper Torch Books.
Aboriginal Epistemology
- Willie J Ermine
Ermine, Willie J. (1995). "Aboriginal Epistemology." In M. Battiste and J.
Barman (eds.), First Nations Education in Canada: The Circle Unfolds, 101-112.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
Putting Ourselves Forward: Location in Aboriginal Research
- Kathy Absolon
- Cam Willett
Absolon, Kathy, and Cam Willett. (2004). "Putting Ourselves
Forward: Location in Aboriginal Research." In Leslie Brown and Susan
Straga (eds.), Research as Resistance: Innovative, Critical and Anti-oppressive
Approaches to Knowledge Creation, 97-126. Toronto: Canadian Scholars
Press.
Collective Effects of Medical Research The Governance of Health Research Involving Human Subjects
- Michael M Burgess
- Fern Brunger
Burgess, Michael M., and Fern Brunger. (2000). " Collective Effects of Medical
Research. " In Michael McDonald (ed.), The Governance of Health Research
Involving Human Subjects, 117–52. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada.
An Indigenous Perspective 185
Paper presented at the Community Education Strategic / Operational Planning Symposium for "Language and Culture" of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey
- Cheryl Bartlett
- Albert Marshall
Bartlett, Cheryl, and Albert Marshall. (2010). "Two-Eyed Seeing Science
Curricula." Paper presented at the Community Education Strategic /
Operational Planning Symposium for "Language and Culture" of Mi'kmaw
Kina'matnewey, 11 Mar., Dartmouth, NS,.
The Governance of Health Research Involving Human Subjects
- Michael M Burgess
- Fern Brunger
Burgess, Michael M., and Fern Brunger. (2000). "Collective Effects of Medical
Research." In Michael McDonald (ed.), The Governance of Health Research
Involving Human Subjects, 117-52. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada.
Kahnawáke Schools Diabetes Prevention Project
Kahnawáke Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. (1996). KSDPP Code of
Research Ethics. http://www.ksdpp.org/media/ksdpp_code_of_research_
ethics2007.pdf.
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
- Jessica Porsanger
Porsanger, Jessica. (1999). "An Essay about Indigenous Methodology." http://
munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/906/article.pdf
PRE (Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics). (2002). Process and
Principles for Developing a Canadian Governance System for the Ethical Conduct
of Research Involving Humans. http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/index.cfm
Schnarch, Brian. (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 14 (16): 80-95.