Indigenous community engagement requirements for academic journals

Abstract

This commentary emerged from an Indigenous research ethics and governance gathering and a scoping review completed by a diverse team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, which includes some of the co-authors of this article. A lack of detail regarding whether and how community engagement was carried out and reported in the context of published Indigenous health research in the Atlantic region of Canada were identified. This commentary builds on this work as well as other published works that emphasize the need to further ensure that Indigenous research is community based if not community led. Moreover, this commentary lends support to important changes to journal submission requirements regarding Indigenous health research submissions recently made at the Canadian Journal of Public Health through the work of Senior Editor Dr Janet Smylie and colleagues.

This commentary emerged from a scoping review completed by a diverse team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, which includes some of the co-authors of this article. It also builds on discussions that took place at an Indigenous research ethics and governance symposium held in 2019 in Labrador Canada, called the Naalak Gathering. These discussions, as well as the scoping review, highlighted a lack of information and emphasis regarding whether and how community engagement was carried out and reported in the context of published Indigenous health research in the Atlantic region of Canada. This commentary builds on this work as well as other published works that emphasize the need to further ensure that Indigenous research is community based if not community led. Moreover, this commentary lends support to important changes to journal submission requirements regarding Indigenous health research submissions recently made at the Canadian Journal of Public Health (CJPH) through the work of Senior Editor Dr Janet Smylie and colleagues. This is the first academic journal, to date, in Canada to create such a policy (Canadian Public Health Association, 2020):

Empowerment and benefits must become central features of any research entertained and conducted with respect to Indigenous Peoples. (Ermine et al., 2007, p. 7)

Despite its challenges and potential for harm, research, if done ethically and with respect and partnership, can be a force for change and will strengthen the efficacy of data on Indigenous Peoples’ health and wellbeing. (White et al., 2021, p. 1)

Introduction

A recent comprehensive scoping review identified a lack of detail regarding whether and how community engagement was carried out and reported in the context of published Indigenous health research in the Atlantic region of Canada (White et al., 2021). This lack of detail makes it difficult to assess whether research involving Indigenous Peoples was in fact community-engaged and if so what the nature of that engagement was. Concerns about the lack of detail around community engagement in published Indigenous health research were also recently discussed at an Indigenous research ethics and governance symposium held in 2019 called, the Naalak Gathering. The Naalak Gathering was held to contribute to a dialogue on Indigenous health research ethics and governance to “address the principle-to-policy gap that has been identified by researchers, Indigenous communities and Research Ethics Boards (REB’s) themselves” (Bull et al., 2019, p. 7). Participants included Indigenous community members, Indigenous and non-Indigenous allied scholars who work in the area of Indigenous health scholarship, or interdisciplinary research relating to Indigenous health. This commentary presents key points and recommendations that emerged from the symposium, the scoping review, as well as extensive discussions between the authors of this article and are presented here to help stimulate further discussion. It is important to point out that we did not engage one specific community for this commentary. Instead, we are presenting recommendations to ensure community engagement based on our collective work with and in multiple Indigenous communities that were involved in the symposium and many discussions between the authors of this commentary.

In Canada, with the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action regarding education released in 2015 and with the addition of Chapter 9: Research Involving the Indigenous First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada to the Tri-Council Agency, consisting of the three main research funding agencies, statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2018), there is movement towards decolonizing research practice, a fundamental principle for this journal and increasingly, there are publications emphasizing the need to ensure Indigenous research is community based (Fournier et al., 2023; Hayward et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2021; Restoule et al., 2019; Roher et al., 2021; Sylliboy et al., 2021).

In this commentary, we are suggesting that academic publishing processes can further, if not strengthen and complement ethical processes of Indigenous research accountability, especially for the Indigenous communities involved and provide safeguards about what is written up in health research publications. A meaningful first step towards achieving this is for academic journals to establish journal submission requirements like those developed by Senior Editor Janet Smylie et al. (2020) at the CJPH. CJPH now requires that all Indigenous health research that is considered for publication in their journal answer the following questions:

1. Are First Nations, Inuit, Métis, and Indigenous Peoples or populations a focus of this submission?

2. If yes, were the relevant Indigenous Peoples or populations engaged in the study and preparation of this submission?

3. If yes, please summarize how the relevant Indigenous Peoples or populations have been engaged as individuals and collectively in the study and preparation of this submission.

If the authors do not answer yes to the questions above, the submission is considered incomplete and is sent back for revision. If the resubmitted manuscript does not meet the editorial standards above, it is declined and not sent out for peer review (Smylie et al., 2020). The CJPH is also requiring all Indigenous peer reviewers to “have knowledge about Indigenous health research ethics, principles and processes” (Smylie et al., 2020, p. 827).

These types of requirements for Indigenous community engagement reporting are far from the norm in academic journals (Potvin, 2020; Smylie et al., 2020). Based on an extensive search of other academic journals’ Indigenous health research publication policies, the CJPH is the only journal that we have yet to come across that has such specific requirements. Other journals such as this journal, AlterNative, requires that Indigenous scholars review any submission that involves Indigenous research, something which is becoming increasingly common. In support of ethical publication practices, Indigenous scholar Raglan Maddox et al. (2023) argue that

Ethical publishing practices can minimise and address harms, such as appropriation and misuse of knowledges; strengthen mechanisms of accountability to Indigenous peoples and communities and support Indigenous agency, sovereignty and self-determination. (p. 1)

Increasingly, there is a positive trend towards Indigenous community partners being co-authors on research that they have been involved with, which is an important step in honouring their involvement.

Preventing research harms and knowledge extraction

It is well established that Canadian health research involving Indigenous Peoples has often been extractive in nature, offering no measurable benefit to communities in some cases and outright harm to communities in others (Brunger & Wall, 2016; Champagne, 2015; Fournier et al., 2023; Hayward et al., 2021; White et al., 2021). In response, revised practices and principles for conducting ethical health research involving Indigenous Peoples are being established by Indigenous communities, organizations, and governments (Champagne, 2015; Fournier et al., 2023; Hayward et al., 2021; Kovach, 2009; Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2004). These revised practices are increasingly being applied by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars to prevent harm and ensure research meaningfully contributes to beneficial outcomes as defined by the communities themselves (Anderson, 2019; Fournier et al., 2023; Hyett et al., 2018; Kilian et al., 2019; Piquemal, 2000; Simpson, 2011; Smith, 2022; Smylie et al., 2020; Wilson, 2004). A principal component underlying these approaches for preventing harm includes ensuring that the health research being conducted has been identified by the community as a topic of priority for them, and moreover, that the research itself is led and owned by the Indigenous Peoples implicated in the outcomes of the research (Fournier et al., 2023; Hayward et al., 2021; Simpson, 2011; Smith, 2022). One method of ensuring Indigenous health research meets these criteria is for research to undergo a local Indigenous community or organization led ethics review (Hayward et al., 2021).

Strengthened Indigenous health research ethics protocols often place great emphasis on ensuring the research is aligned with community-identified priorities and led by the community or organization (Fournier et al., 2023; Hayward et al., 2021). For this to happen, relationship building must be initiated well before research projects are formulated (Castleden et al., 2012; Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2004). Even with time constraints often inflicted through last-minute funding opportunities or short funding requirement timelines, Indigenous health research plans must build in efforts to establish this relationship throughout the research process, or we suggest at the very least, provide evidence of asking communities if the research is relevant and if not to provide explanations to why this was not done. This requires Indigenous health research to shift away from superficial and late-stage community engagement towards meaningful research practice guided by principles for upholding Indigenous self-determination, reciprocity, and data sovereignty (Fournier et al., 2023). Such principles are widely recognized as foundational to ethical Indigenous research in general and Indigenous health research in particular (Brunger & Wall, 2016; Fournier et al., 2023; Roher et al., 2021; Smith, 2022; Sylliboy et al., 2021; Wilson, 2004) as they help balance the power dynamics between academic researchers and community members (Castleden et al., 2008; Israel et al., 2018; Wallerstein et al., 2018).

While scholarship has increasingly identified community-driven and engaged health research as an approach that acknowledges and upholds Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination (Castleden et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2021; Ritchie et al., 2013), published health research does not tend to fully recount the approach used to demonstrate this. This means that there is a gap between how community-engaged research is enacted, and how it is subsequently reported within academic publications. One of the explanations for this discrepancy stems from limitations on word count afforded by academic journals, which allow little space for authors to explain their relationship building processes for example (Smylie et al., 2020). Without consciously documenting these processes, and instead privileging other aspects of methods and results, the final product omits many of the key elements that Indigenous communities agree constitute strong, respectful, and useful health research (Grenz, 2023; Wilson et al., 2019). This results in published Indigenous health research that is not community led and or engaged being published without such external accountability measures in place. It can also lead to health research projects that are community-led and community-engaged not being given the space to adequately capture the richness of Indigenous community-directed health research projects. This commentary calls for relational accountability discussed below, across all stages of research, including the revision of policies for academic peer-reviewed journals in requiring authors to recount the relational aspects of Indigenous health-related research in detail. In practice, this would mean that journals would require authors to describe Indigenous community engagement as well as ethical commitments and involvement as necessary components of the publication for all Indigenous research. In this next section, we outline the suggested expanded role of journals in publishing Indigenous research and in particular Indigenous health research.

Increasing researcher relational accountability

Relational accountability is a research practice that Shawn Wilson outlines clearly in his book Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods (2008). Wilson defines relational accountability as acknowledging and honouring our relationship with all life forms and being accountable to all our relatives—human and non-human. We apply this concept in the context of this commentary to simply mean ensuring Indigenous Peoples and communities involved in the research are actively engaged with and involved in all stages of the research from conception to outcomes to publications and other forms of dissemination. To support and foster safe and beneficial research, research partnerships require relational accountability from the outset, including demonstrations of commitment, consent, and ongoing partnership as determined by those most affected by the research (Potvin, 2020; Smylie et al., 2020). To this end, a recent publication by Murphy et al. (2021) argued for improvements to publication guidelines for Indigenous research. This includes reporting details of how Indigenous community engagement was undertaken for all Indigenous research-related submissions to academic journals (Murphy et al., 2021; Potvin, 2020; Smylie et al., 2020). They also suggest that authors should not only include detailed accounts of community engagement processes, but that Indigenous community or organization members should be prioritized (with their permission and consent) in co-authorship (Giles & Castleden, 2008; Murphy et al., 2021).

Another important facet of fostering safe and beneficial Indigenous research is ensuring that the peer review process is guided by Indigenous knowledges and worldviews and includes Indigenous voices. For example, Movono et al. (2021) suggest recruiting Indigenous scholars as peer reviewers for all Indigenous research. Thus, helping to ensure that peer reviews are not simply guided by western paradigms as standards of “good” research or done by scholars that do not have lived Indigenous experience and knowledges (Hayward et al., 2021; Simonds & Christopher, 2013). Broadening the scope of what constitutes legitimate knowledge and research is a critical component of decolonizing research (Fournier et al., 2023; Smith, 2021).

Momentum towards decolonizing research was ignited with the publication of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s book, Decolonizing Methodologies, Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999). Since its publication, and two subsequent editions, literature on decolonizing research by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars has expanded dramatically (Chilisa, 2020; Fournier et al., 2023; Kovach, 2021; Loppie, 2007; Pictou, 2019; Rix et al., 2019; Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2004). Yet, Smith (2021) argues that there is still a lack of progress in decolonizing academic institutions, even as the discourse has shifted to include words such as decolonization, reconciliation, inclusion, and diversity. Smith’s observations extend to academic journals, one of the major forums of research dissemination and knowledge sharing (Smith, 2021), not to mention academic merit. This concern suggests that while language may have altered, significant systematic changes have not yet occurred (Movono et al., 2021).

Furthermore, despite a proliferation in published literature discussing decolonizing research, the definition of decolonization remains ambiguous (Datta, 2017; Held, 2019; Krusz et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2019; Pictou, 2019; Tuck, 2013; Tuck & Wang, 2012). There are, however, several key themes that emerge when discussing decolonizing research. For instance, decolonizing research is often referred to as an approach that works towards de-centring, challenging, and unlearning dominant Eurocentric or western knowledge systems (Chilisa, 2020; Smith, 2021; Tuck & Wang, 2012). Decolonizing methodologies, for example, have been described as centralizing Indigenous voices and ways of knowing in the research process (Restoule et al., 2019; Smith, 2022; Tuck, 2013; Tuck & Wang, 2012; Wilson, 2004; Wilson et al., 2019), and relying on relational accountabilities that focus on the way research unfolds in addition to the findings (Barlo et al., 2021; Moore et al., 2017; Stiegman & Castleden, 2015; Wilson, 2004). In other words, the process, in this case of community engagement, is a fundamental component of research and as such needs to be recounted.

Sylvestre et al. (2018) remind us that community engagement and leadership require not only community involvement during the conception and conduct of research but must also deeply engage with Indigenous knowledges and worldviews. They also remind us that even when research is community-based, it is most often also university-based (Sylvestre et al., 2018). As such, even researchers with the best of intentions may end up falling short in how community-based research is enacted with Indigenous Peoples, as researchers may have competing interests and accountabilities often compounded by academic institutional timelines and restrictions (Stiegman & Castleden, 2015; Sylvestre et al., 2018), as well as current publication requirements (Castleden et al., 2012; Ermine et al., 2004; Stiegman & Castleden, 2015; Sylvestre et al., 2018; White et al., 2021). Given the importance of relational accountability in Indigenous research, a detailed and transparent account of what that involved should be a standard requirement for academic publications that report on Indigenous research projects. Furthermore, this recounting needs to include Sylvestre et al.’s (2018) call for research processes that honour Indigenous ways of knowing.

Relational accountability in research reporting

Research dissemination in academic journals and the need for reporting the process of Indigenous community engagement are not currently supported by most journal specifications. For example, most journals have rigid word limits and specific headings to include, but often there is little to no importance placed on the process of community engagement, partnership, and governance or leadership for ensuring safe and beneficial research. Smylie et al. (2020) have noted these issues and called for expanding the role and responsibility of academic journals in 2020 to help ensure research projects involving Indigenous Peoples meaningfully engage them before, during, and following research projects (Potvin, 2020):

[t]here is wide recognition that First Nations, Inuit, Métis (FNIM) and Indigenous Peoples face historic and ongoing injustices, including the exclusion, marginalization, and/or misrepresentation of their voices and perspectives in academic publications about them. (Smylie et al., 2020, p. 826)

As noted above, to help address this concern, CJPH, of which Dr. Smylie is Senior Editor, recently made important changes to their publishing guidelines for Indigenous research submissions. CJPH also put in place ethical standards which require researchers to demonstrate how the communities involved are aware of the manuscript and that those who have been involved are offered opportunities to be or are listed as co-authors with their consent. If the manuscript does not meet the new editorial standards for Indigenous community engagement, the article is declined (Smylie et al., 2020). To support their new standards, they are appointing an Indigenous Senior and Associate Editor.

These new submission guidelines set by the CJPH are far from the standard. Clearly, outlining the process for developing such guidelines especially in the context of Indigenous health research would help establish important precedents for other journals in revising their submission guidelines and in enhancing the accountability of reporting in Indigenous research. It is also crucial that the voices of diverse Indigenous communities and organizations help establish Indigenous research journal submission guidelines. Ultimately, enhanced reporting guidelines, driven by the needs and preferences of Indigenous communities across academic journals, may both set clear expectations for the ethical and participatory conduct of research with Indigenous Peoples more broadly and help contribute to a more accurate account of Indigenous research as a whole.

Moving forward towards decolonizing academic journals

Academic journals need to make space for authors to report on how community engagement was enacted throughout the entirety of the research process to ensure research is not only safe, but community informed, driven, and of benefit as determined by the community themselves. Other ways academic journals can contribute to ensuring a safe and supportive publishing environment for Indigenous research is to secure peer reviewer expertise to properly assess Indigenous research such as, having Indigenous Elders, community members as well as Indigenous and Indigenist researchers represented on editorial boards and review committees, modifying submission guidelines, including word limits, making more space for methodology, requiring community engagement in reporting, and ensuring peer reviewers can properly assess community engagement protocols and practices by providing them with appropriate training, and learning about the specific community identified principles of data sovereignty. This means ensuring all reviewers have the knowledge, awareness, and training to review Indigenous-led and Indigenous-focused research and that there be greater Indigenous representation among peer reviewers. This would require academic journals to provide clear guidelines and policies for peer reviewers or authors involved in Indigenous health research peer review. It is also important to reiterate the importance of community engagement in determining revised policies, procedures, and guidelines for academic journal reporting. Ultimately, any adopted policies and guidelines must include direction from a diversity of communities and not just informed by academic researchers.

Conclusion

Recent advancements in Indigenous research processes contribute to ensuring that research led by, involving, and impacting Indigenous Peoples is safe and beneficial; however, so far, many of these changes are still superficial and tokenistic (Blackstock, 2016; Fridkin et al., 2019; Smith, 2021; Styres et al., 2020). As noted by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021), the discourse may be shifting, but fundamental structural changes within academia, in this instance peer-reviewed journal submission policies, need to be modified in meaningful ways (Anderson, 2019; Bull et al., 2019; Hyett et al., 2018; Kilian et al., 2019; Smith, 2021; Smylie et al., 2020). Working towards Indigenous self-determination, research governance, and data sovereignty require substantive changes in how research involving and impacting Indigenous Peoples is not only conducted but how it is shared. We suggest that work towards decolonizing academic research requires peer-reviewed journals to augment reporting standards, ensuring that the nature of community engagement with Indigenous communities is genuinely reflected in their publications. We propose that one place to implement meaningful change towards decolonizing academic research policies is for academic journals to require authors to report the details of how and when community engagement was undertaken and how it unfolded. These changes need to be undertaken by engaging with a diversity of Indigenous communities before they are implemented to ensure that the processes for decolonizing research are led by the voices of Indigenous Peoples themselves.