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

Exploring, Diversifying and Debating Sustainable Health (Care) Approaches

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.

Individual and collective leadership for deliberate transformations: Insights from Indigenous leadership

Deliberately transforming society toward equitable and sustainable futures requires leadership. But what kind of leadership? While the dominant understanding of leadership often centers on the individual, the concept of collective leadership is receiving increased attention. Yet, the relationship between individual and collective leadership remains elusive and has been given limited attention in the transformation literature. In this study, I explore how leadership is understood and enacted in an Alaska Native community engaged in transforming community systems toward enhanced sustainability. I draw on Indigenous leadership research, organized through four interrelated analytical lenses: the individual leader, leadership through culture, leadership through process, and leadership through integration. I find that leadership in the community can be seen as something simultaneously individual and collective and argue that an Indigenous relational ontology makes it possible to imagine leadership as an “individual-collective simultaneity.” In the discussion, I highlight the connections to emerging theories and approaches within “mainstream” leadership research, pointing to the potential for bridging disciplines and paradigms. For leadership and transformation researchers to engage in this bridging work, we must reflect on and reconsider our assumptions as to what agency for transformation is, with important implications for how we work to support transformations. While “ontological bridge building” creates tensions, it is through holding and working through these creative tensions that we can start to see pathways toward equitable and sustainable futures.

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

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.