Using Indigenous Standards to Implement the CARE Principles: Setting Expectations through Tribal Research Codes

Flipping data on its head: Differing conceptualisations of data and the implications for actioning Indigenous data sovereignty principles

Indigenous data sovereignty is of global concern. The power of data through its multitude of uses can cause harm to Indigenous Peoples, communities, organisations and Nations in Canada and globally. Indigenous research principles play a vital role in guiding researchers, scholars and policy makers in their careers and roles. We define data, data sovereignty principles, ways of practicing Indigenous research principles, and recommendations for applying and actioning Indigenous data sovereignty through culturally safe self-reflection, interpersonal and reciprocal relationships built upon respect, reciprocity, relevance, responsibility and accountability. Research should be co-developed, co-led, and co-disseminated in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, communities, organisations and/or nations to build capacity, support self-determination, and reduce harms produced through the analysis and dissemination of research findings. OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access & Possession), OCAS (Ownership, Control, Access & Stewardship), Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles in conjunction the 4Rs (respect, relevance, reciprocity & responsibility) and cultural competency including self-examination of the 3Ps (power, privilege, and positionality) of researchers, scholars and policy makers can be challenging, but will amplify the voices and understandings of Indigenous research by implementing Indigenous data sovereignty in Canada.

Dying in Darkness: Deviations From Data Sharing Ethics in the US Public Health System and the Data Genocide of American Indian and Alaska Native Communities

Tribal governments and Tribal Epidemiology Centers face persistent challenges in obtaining the public health data that are essential to accomplishing their legal and ethical duties to promote health in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. We assessed the ethical implications of current impediments to data sharing among federal, state, and Tribal public health partners. Public health ethics obligates public health data sharing and opposes data collection without dissemination to affected communities. Privacy practices, like deidentification and data suppression, often obstruct data access, disproportionately affect American Indian and Alaska Native populations, and exacerbate health disparities. The 2020-2024 syphilis outbreak illustrates how restricted data access impedes effective public health responses. These practices represent a source of structuralized violence throughout the US public health system that contributes to the data genocide of American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Good governance practices like transparent data practices and the establishment of a social license (ie, the informal permission of a community to collect and use data) is essential to ethically balancing collective well-being with individual privacy in public health.

Trusted partners, community priorities, and data protections: requirements for precision medicine research with Alaska Native peoples

Precision medicine holds promise for improving health care by tailoring disease treatment and prevention efforts to the needs of individual patients. It also raises ethical questions related to equitable distribution of the benefits of precision medicine; data management, including the terms of data ownership, sharing, and security; and, the nature and extent of community engagement in and oversight of research. These questions are particularly salient for minoritized communities that have been harmed by unethical research practices and often deprived the full benefit of advances in medical science. Understanding the perspectives of these communities is essential to the design and conduct of ethical and effective precision medicine research. This study explored perspectives on the acceptability, feasibility, value, and benefits and harms of precision medicine research among Alaska Native and American Indian (ANAI) peoples. We conducted four focus groups with ANAI individuals who receive primary care from a Tribal health organization in Anchorage, Alaska. Participants were willing to engage in precision medicine research provided specific requirements were met. Research must be conducted by the Tribal health organization or another trusted partner, community health priorities must drive the research agenda, and researchers must employ robust data protections to guard against loss of data security and maintain control over data use and access. These requirements work collectively to ensure research benefits and respects Tribal sovereignty. These findings could help inform efforts to design and implement precision medicine research programs tailored to concerns of ANAI peoples.

Arthropods are kin: Operationalizing Indigenous data sovereignty to respectfully utilize genomic data from Indigenous lands

Indigenous peoples have cultivated biodiverse agroecosystems since time immemorial. The rise of metagenomics and high-throughput sequencing technologies in biodiversity studies has rapidly expanded the scale of data collection from these lands. A respectful approach to the data life cycle grounded in the sovereignty of indigenous communities is imperative to not perpetuate harm. In this paper, we operationalize an indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) framework to outline realistic considerations for genomic data that span data collection, governance, and communication. As a case study for this framework, we use arthropod genomic data collected from diversified and simplified farm sites close to and far from natural habitats within a historic Kānaka 'Ōiwi (Indigenous Hawaiian) agroecosystem. Diversified sites had the highest Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) richness for native and introduced arthropods. There may be a significant spillover effect between forest and farm sites, as farm sites near a natural habitat had higher OTU richness than those farther away. We also provide evidence that management factors such as the number of Polynesian crops cultivated may drive arthropod community composition. Through this case study, we emphasize the context-dependent opportunities and challenges for operationalizing IDS by utilizing participatory research methods, expanding novel data management tools through the Local Contexts Hub, and developing and nurturing community partnerships-all while highlighting the potential of agroecosystems for arthropod conservation. Overall, the workflow and the example presented here can help researchers take tangible steps to achieve IDS, which often seems elusive with the expanding use of genomic data.

A manifesto for a globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science

The field of psychology has rapidly transformed its open science practices in recent years. Yet there has been limited progress in integrating principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. In this Perspective, we raise the spectre of Questionable Generalisability Practices and the issue of MASKing (Making Assumptions based on Skewed Knowledge), calling for more responsible practices in generalising study findings and co-authorship to promote global equity in knowledge production. To drive change, researchers must target all four key components of the research process: design, reporting, generalisation, and evaluation. Additionally, macro-level geopolitical factors must be considered to move towards a robust behavioural science that is truly inclusive, representing the voices and experiences of the majority world (i.e., low-and-middle-income countries).

"Rigorous and Systematic Qualitative Data Analysis in Biological Anthropology"

Biological anthropologists have long engaged in qualitative data analysis (QDA), though such work is not always foregrounded. In this article, we discuss the role of rigorous and systematic QDA in biological anthropology and consider how it can be understood and advanced. We first establish what kinds of qualitative data and analysis are used in biological anthropology. We then review the ways QDA has been used in six subfields of biological anthropology: primatology, human biology, paleoanthropology, dental and skeletal biology, bioarchaeology, and anthropological genetics. We follow that with an overview of how to use QDA methods: three simple QDA methods (i.e., word-based analysis, theme analysis, and coding) and three QDA approaches for model-building and model-testing (i.e., content analysis, semantic network analysis, and grounded theory). With this foundation in place, we discuss how QDA can support transformative research in biological anthropology-emphasizing the valuable role of QDA in inductive and community-based research. We discuss how QDA supports transformative research using mixed-methods research designs, participatory action research, and abolition and Black feminist research. Finally, we consider how to close a QDA project, reflecting on the logistics, ethics, and limitations of qualitative data sharing, including how researchers can use the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) to support Indigenous data sovereignty.

Genetic research within Indigenous communities: Engagement opportunities and pathways forward

PURPOSE

Against a historical backdrop of researchers who violated trust through lack of benefit sharing, transparency, and engagement, efforts are underway to develop better approaches for genetic and genomic research with Indigenous communities. To increase engagement, there is a need to understand factors that affect researcher and community collaborations. This study aimed to understand the barriers, challenges, and facilitators of Indigenous Peoples in the United States participating in genetic research.

METHODS

We conducted 42 semistructured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members across the United States to explore perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of genetic research participation.

RESULTS

Participants, identifying as Indigenous (88%) or non-Indigenous allies (12%), described their concerns, hesitancy, and fears about genetic research, as well as the roles of trust, transparency, and respect for culture in facilitating partnerships. Previous harms-such as sample and data misuse, stigmatization, or misrepresentation by researchers-revealed strategies for building trust to create more equitable and reciprocal research partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study offered strategies for increasing genetic research engagement. The pathway forward should foster transparent research policies and practices to facilitate informed research that supports the needs and priorities of participants, communities, and researchers.

Increased community engagement of Indigenous Peoples in dementia research leads to higher context relevance of results

INTRODUCTION

Health research that focuses on Indigenous Peoples must ensure that the community in question is actively engaged, and that the results have context relevance for Indigenous Peoples. Context relevance is "the benefits, usability, and respectful conduct of research from the perspective of Indigenous communities." The purpose of this study was to apply two tools within an already-published scoping review of 76 articles featuring research on cognitive impairment and dementia among Indigenous Peoples worldwide. One tool assessed levels of community engagement reported in the corpus, and the other tool assessed the context relevance of recommendations in the corpus. We hypothesized that research with higher levels of reported community engagement would produce recommendations with greater context relevance for Indigenous Peoples.

METHODS

We employed semi-structured deductive coding using two novel tools assessing levels of reported community engagement and context relevance of recommendations based on studies included in the existing scoping review.

RESULTS

Application of the two tools revealed a positive relationship between increasing community engagement and greater context relevance. Community engagement primarily occurred in studies conducted with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations in Canada and with Australian Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Research with Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Peoples in the USA stood out for its comparative lack of meaningful community engagement.

DISCUSSION

There is opportunity to utilize these tools, and the results of this assessment, to enhance training and mentorship for researchers who work with Indigenous populations. There is a need to increase investigator capacity to involve communities throughout all phases of research, particularly in the pre-research stages.

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

Genetic research with Indigenous Peoples: perspectives on governance and oversight in the US

Introduction

Indigenous Peoples are increasingly exerting governance and oversight over genomic research with citizens of their nations, raising questions about how best to enforce research regulation between American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples and researchers.

Methods

Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics research with Indigenous Peoples in the US.

Results

We report findings related to (1) considerations for Indigenous governance, (2) institutional relationships upholding sovereignty, (3) expectations for research approvals, and (4) agreements enacting Indigenous governance. Participants described concerns about different ways of exerting oversight, relationships and agreements between Indigenous Peoples and researchers, and gaps that need to be addressed to strengthen existing governance of genomic data.

Discussion

The results will ultimately guide policy-making and development of new strategies for Indigenous Peoples to enforce oversight in research to promote ethically and culturally appropriate research.

Understanding Resilience and Mental Well-Being in Southwest Indigenous Nations and the Impact of COVID-19: Protocol for a Multimethods Study

BACKGROUND

Despite experiencing many adversities, American Indian and Alaska Native populations have demonstrated tremendous resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing upon Indigenous determinants of health (IDOH) and Indigenous Nation Building.

OBJECTIVE

Our multidisciplinary team undertook this study to achieve two aims: (1) to determine the role of IDOH in tribal government policy and action that supports Indigenous mental health and well-being and, in turn, resilience during the COVID-19 crisis and (2) to document the impact of IDOH on Indigenous mental health, well-being, and resilience of 4 community groups, specifically first responders, educators, traditional knowledge holders and practitioners, and members of the substance use recovery community, working in or near 3 Native nations in Arizona.

METHODS

To guide this study, we developed a conceptual framework based on IDOH, Indigenous Nation Building, and concepts of Indigenous mental well-being and resilience. The research process was guided by the Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics (CARE) principles for Indigenous Data Governance to honor tribal and data sovereignty. Data were collected through a multimethods research design, including interviews, talking circles, asset mapping, and coding of executive orders. Special attention was placed on the assets and culturally, socially, and geographically distinct features of each Native nation and the communities within them. Our study was unique in that our research team consisted predominantly of Indigenous scholars and community researchers representing at least 8 tribal communities and nations in the United States. The members of the team, regardless of whether they identified themselves as Indigenous or non-Indigenous, have many collective years of experience working with Indigenous Peoples, which ensures that the approach is culturally respectful and appropriate.

RESULTS

The number of participants enrolled in this study was 105 adults, with 92 individuals interviewed and 13 individuals engaged in 4 talking circles. Because of time constraints, the team elected to host talking circles with only 1 nation, with participants ranging from 2 to 6 in each group. Currently, we are in the process of conducting a qualitative analysis of the transcribed narratives from interviews, talking circles, and executive orders. These processes and outcomes will be described in future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This community-engaged study lays the groundwork for future studies addressing Indigenous mental health, well-being, and resilience. Findings from this study will be shared through presentations and publications with larger Indigenous and non-Indigenous audiences, including local recovery groups, treatment centers, and individuals in recovery; K-12 and higher education educators and administrators; directors of first responder agencies; traditional medicine practitioners; and elected community leaders. The findings will also be used to produce well-being and resilience education materials, in-service training sessions, and future recommendations for stakeholder organizations.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/44727.

Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Data: a contribution toward Indigenous Research Sovereignty

Indigenous Peoples' right to sovereignty forms the foundation for advocacy and actions toward greater Indigenous self-determination and control across a range of domains that impact Indigenous Peoples' communities and cultures. Declarations for sovereignty are rising throughout Indigenous communities and across diverse fields, including Network Sovereignty, Food Sovereignty, Energy Sovereignty, and Data Sovereignty. Indigenous Research Sovereignty draws in the sovereignty discourse of these initiatives to consider their applications to the broader research ecosystem. Our exploration of Indigenous Research Sovereignty, or Indigenous self-determination in the context of research activities, has been focused on the relationship between Indigenous Data Sovereignty and efforts to describe Indigenous Peoples' Rights in data.

Data sharing in the context of community-engaged research partnerships

Over the past 20 years, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) has implemented several policies designed to improve sharing of research data, such as the NIH public access policy for publications, NIH genomic data sharing policy, and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot public access and data sharing policy. In January 2023, a new NIH data sharing policy has gone into effect, requiring researchers to submit a Data Management and Sharing Plan in proposals for NIH funding (NIH. Supplemental information to the, 2020b; NIH. Final policy for data, 2020a). These policies are based on the idea that sharing data is a key component of the scientific method, as it enables the creation of larger data repositories that can lead to research questions that may not be possible in individual studies (Alter and Gonzalez, 2018; Jwa and Poldrack, 2022), allows enhanced collaboration, and maximizes the federal investment in research. Important questions that we must consider as data sharing is expanded are to whom do benefits of data sharing accrue and to whom do benefits not accrue? In an era of growing efforts to engage diverse communities in research, we must consider the impact of data sharing for all research participants and the communities that they represent. We examine the issue of data sharing through a community-engaged research lens, informed by a long-standing partnership between community-engaged researchers and a key community health organization (Kruse et al., 2022). We contend that without effective community engagement and rich contextual knowledge, biases resulting from data sharing can remain unchecked. We provide several recommendations that would allow better community engagement related to data sharing to ensure both community and researcher understanding of the issues involved and move toward shared benefits. By identifying good models for evaluating the impact of data sharing on communities that contribute data, and then using those models systematically, we will advance the consideration of the community perspective and increase the likelihood of benefits for all.

Opportunities for improving data sharing and FAIR data practices to advance global mental health

It is crucial to optimize global mental health research to address the high burden of mental health challenges and mental illness for individuals and societies. Data sharing and reuse have demonstrated value for advancing science and accelerating knowledge development. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Guiding Principles for scientific data provide a framework to improve the transparency, efficiency, and impact of research. In this review, we describe ethical and equity considerations in data sharing and reuse, delineate the FAIR principles as they apply to mental health research, and consider the current state of FAIR data practices in global mental health research, identifying challenges and opportunities. We describe noteworthy examples of collaborative efforts, often across disciplinary and national boundaries, to improve Findability and Accessibility of global mental health data, as well as efforts to create integrated data resources and tools that improve Interoperability and Reusability. Based on this review, we suggest a vision for the future of FAIR global mental health research and suggest practical steps for researchers with regard to study planning, data preservation and indexing, machine-actionable metadata, data reuse to advance science and improve equity, metrics and recognition.

Extending the CARE Principles from tribal research policies to benefit sharing in genomic research

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government's research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses findings from a review of Tribal research legislation, policy, and administrative materials from 26 tribes in the US. The discussion specifies issues viewed by tribes as facilitators and barriers to securing benefits from research for their nations and members/citizens, and describes preemptive and mitigating strategies pursued by tribes in response. These strategies are set within the framing of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), a set of standards developed to ensure that decisions made about data pertaining to Indigenous communities at the individual and tribal levels are responsive to their values and collective interests. Our findings illustrate gaps to address for benefit sharing and a need to strengthen Responsibility and Ethics in tribal research governance.

Data sharing and community-engaged research

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.