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 peoples
1. 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)
1 - Situating Indigenous Methodologies
and Western Research Paradigms
Postpositivist
Constructivist
Transformative
Pragmatic
Quantitative;
Empirical;
Qualitative;
Phenomenology;
Ethnography; etc.
Critical Theory;
Feminist;
Critical Race Theory; etc.
Mixed Methods
Indigenous
Methodologies
from Mertens, 2005. p.8
from Kovach, 2009. p. 31
 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)
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 & communities
Many 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 Ethics
Frameworks
 Tri-council policy for
research with
Indigneous Peoples
 Inuit-specific
perspectives on
research & research
ethics
 OCAP principles –
Ownership, Control,
Access and Possession
 USAI – utility, selfvoicing, access and
interrelationality
Tri-council policy for
research with Indigneous Peoples
The policy framework that guides University-based REB review for all SSHRC,
CIHR & NSERC applications that involve Indigenous peoples in Canada and
Internationally.
 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.”
OCAP Principles
In 2004 , the Assembly of First Nations sanctioned the National Aboriginal Health
Organization OCAP principles for ethical research with Indigenous peoples.
 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
Inuit-specific perspectives
on research and research ethics
The Inuit Tuttarvingat has developed a set of principles that to guide researchers
considering projects in Inuit hamlets and among Inuit populations.
 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.
USAI Principles
The National Association of Indigenous Friendship Centres developed this
framework to better explore issues of interest to urban Aboriginal populations.
 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 selfactualize and realize only those futures that they themselves conceive.”
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, 101112.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