Indigenous Research Ethics Requirements: An Examination of Six Tribal Institutional Review Board Applications and Processes in the United States

Abstract

Tribal Institutional Review Boards (TIRBs) in the United States assert their rights within sovereign nations by developing ethical research processes that align with tribal values to protect indigenous knowledge systems and their community from cultural appropriation, exploitation, misuse, and harm. We reviewed six TIRB applications and processes to gain a better understanding about their requirements and research ethics. We located 48 activated and deactivated TIRBs in a database, mapped them in relation to tribal reservation lands, and then conducted in-depth content analysis. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of building relationships, becoming fully acquainted with the TIRB’s operating environment before seeking research approval, and issues related to tribal data management practices.

Keywords

American Indian Alaskan Native Native American tribes research review boards human subjects’ protections tribal IRBs IRB review ethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arambula Solomon

T. G.

Randall

L. L.

(2014). Conduct-ing health research with Native American communities. American Public Health Association. https://doi.org/10.2105/9780875532028

Barreto

J. M.

(2014). Epistemologies of the south and human rights: Santos and the quest for global and cognitive justice. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 21(2), 395–422.

Brown

L. A.

Strega

(Eds.). (2015). Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed.). Canadian Scholars’ Press; Women’s Press.

Brugge

Missaghian

(2006). Protecting the Navajo People through tribal regulation of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0047-2

Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2019, February 1). Indian entities recognized by and eligible to receive services. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-01/pdf/2019-00897.pdf

Campbell

T. D.

(2014). A clash of paradigms? Western and indigenous views on health research involving Aboriginal peoples. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.39.e1253

Carjuzaa

Fenimore-Smith

J. K.

(2010). The give away spirit: Reaching a shared vision of ethical indigenous research relationships. Journal of Educational Controversy, 5(2), Article 4.

Chadwick

J. Q.

Copeland

K. C.

Daniel

M. R.

Erb-Alvarez

J. A.

Felton

B. A.

Khan

S. I.

. . . Payan

M. L.

(2014). Partnering in research: A national research trial exemplifying effective collaboration with American Indian Nations and the Indian Health Service. American Journal of Epidemiology, 180(12), 1202–1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu246

Davis

S. M.

Reid

(1999). Practicing participatory research in American Indian communities. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(4), 755S–759S.

10.

Dekker

J. L.

(2018). Challenging the “love of possessions”: Repatriation of sacred objects in the United States and Canada. Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, 14(1), 37–62.

11.

Emmel

(2013). Choosing cases in qualitative research. In Emmel

(Ed.), Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach (pp. 157–160). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913882

12.

Evjen

Beck

D. R. M.

(2015). Growing indigenous influence on research, extended perspectives, and a new methodology. In Shanley

K. W.

Evjen

Anaya

S. J.

(Eds.), Mapping indigenous presence: North Scandinavian and North American perspectives (pp. 27–56). The University of Arizona Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/washington/detail.action?docID=3411927

13.

Fisher

P. A.

Ball

T. J.

(2003). Tribal participatory research: Mechanisms of a collaborative model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3–4), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004742.39858.c5

14.

Gordon

Culp

Wolinetz

(2017). Final NIH policy on the use of a single Institutional Review Board for multisite research. Clinical and Translational Science, 10(3), 130–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12447

15.

Harding

Harper

Stone

O’Neill

Berger

Harris

Donatuto

(2012). Conducting research with tribal communities: Sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103904

16.

Hernandez

J. A. A.

(2004). Blood, lies, and Indian rights: TCUs becoming gatekeepers for research. Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 16(2), 10–13.

17.

Hiratsuka

V. Y.

Beans

J. A.

Robinson

R. F.

Shaw

J. L.

Sylvester

Dillard

D. A.

(2017). Self-determination in health research: An Alaska Native example of tribal ownership and research regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111324.

18.

Hodge

F. S.

Weinmann

Roubideaux

(2000). Recruitment of American Indians and Alaska Natives into clinical trials. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(8), S41–S48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00196-4

19.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

Miles

M. B.

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

20.

Hull

S. C.

Wilson

D. R.

(2017). Beyond Belmont: Ensuring respect for AI/AN communities through tribal IRBs, Laws, and Policies. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(7), 60–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1328531

21.

Institutional Review Board Advisor. (2012, January 1). Novel data-sharing plan gives tribes more say. https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/76434-novel-data-sharing-plan-gives-tribes-more-say

22.

James

R. D.

Tsosie

Sahota

Parker

Dillard

Sylvester

. . . Burke

(2014). Exploring pathways to trust: A tribal perspective on data sharing. Genetics in Medicine, 16(11), 820–826. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.47

23.

James

R. D.

West

K. M.

Claw

K. G.

Echohawk

Dodge

Dominguez

. . . Burke

(2018). Responsible research with urban American Indians and Alaska Natives. American Journal of Public Health, 108(12), 1613–1616. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304708

24.

Kelley

Belcourt-Dittloff

Belcourt

(2013). Research ethics and indigenous communities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2146–2152. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301522

25.

Marley

T. L.

(2019). Indigenous data sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board policies and guidelines and research with American Indian and Alaska Native communities. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(6), 722–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218799130

26.

Mihesuah

D. A.

(1996). American Indians, anthropologists, pothunters, and repatriation: Ethical, religious, and political differences [Repatriation: An interdisciplinary dialogue]. The American Indian Quarterly, 20(2), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/1185702

27.

Morton

D. J.

Proudfit

Calac

Portillo

Lofton-Fitzsimmons

Molina

. . . Majel-McCauley

(2013). Creating research capacity through a tribally based Institutional Review Board. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2160–2164. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301473

28.

National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center. (2012). Walk softly and listen carefully: Building research relationships with tribal communities. http://www.ncai.org/attachments/PolicyPaper_SpMCHTcjxRRjMEjDnPmesENPzjHTwhOlOWxlWOIWdSrykJuQggG_NCAI-WalkSoftly.pdf

29.

National Institutes of Health. (2017). Guidance on exceptions to the NIH single IRB policy. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-003.html

30.

Norton

Manson

(1996). Research in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: Navigating the Cultural Universe of Values and Process. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 856–860.

31.

Ocean

Hirschi

(2016). Public and tribal community college institutional review boards: A national descriptive analysis. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(4), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1031409

32.

Oetzel

J. G.

Villegas

Zenone

White Hat

E. R.

Wallerstein

Duran

(2015). Enhancing stewardship of community-engaged research through governance. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6), 1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302457

33.

Pacheco

C. M.

Daley

S. M.

Brown

Filippi

Greiner

K. A.

Daley

C. M.

(2013). Moving forward: Breaking the cycle of mistrust between American Indians and researchers. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2152–2159. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301480

34.

Parker

Pearson

Donald

Fisher

C. B.

(2019). Beyond the Belmont principles: A Community-based approach to developing an indigenous ethics model and curriculum for training health researchers working with American Indian and Alaska Native communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(1–2), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12360

35.

Quigley

(2006). Perspective: A review of improved ethical practices in environmental and public health research: Case examples from native communities. Health Education & Behavior, 33(2), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104272053

36.

Redix

(2017). “Our hope and our protection”: Misko-biiwaabik (copper) and tribal sovereignty in Michigan. American Indian Quarterly, 41(3), 224–249.

37.

Sahota

P. C.

(2009). Research regulation in American Indian/Alaska Native communities: Policy and practice consideration. National Congress American Indians Policy Research Center. http://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/initiatives/Research_Regulation_in_AI_AN_Communities_-_Policy_and_Practice.pdf

38.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

39.

Schnarch

(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), 80–95.

40.

Shore

Brazauskas

Drew

Wong

K. A.

Moy

Baden

A. C.

. . . Seifer

S. D.

(2011). Understanding community-based processes for research ethics review: A national study. American Journal of Public Health, 101(Suppl. 1), S359–S364. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.194340

41.

Smith

LaDuke

(2015). Conquest: Sexual violence and American Indian genocide. Duke University Press.

42.

Smith

L. T.

(2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books; University of Otago Press.

43.

Tsosie

(2012). Indigenous peoples and epistemic injustice: Science, ethics, and human rights. Washington Law Review, 87(4), 1133–1201.

44.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Public Welfare, Part 46 Protection of Human Services, Subpart A Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects.

45.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). About us. https://www.bia.gov/about-us

46.

U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The Commission.