How to do research with Native communities: lessons from students’ experiences and Elders’ wisdom

Participants

Ten students (male = 1, female = 9) were interviewed. Eight identified themselves as non-Natives (White = 7, Asian = 1, African Immigrant = 1), one as biracial (Black and American Indian), and one as American Indian. They were in different stages of their academic and professional careers, including completing their doctoral degree (n = 5), working in academia (n = 1), training in medical residency (n = 2), completing their master’s degree (n = 1), and working in public health (n = 1). Experience with conventional research training varied from introductory coursework to several years of classroom and applied experience across both quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Involvement with Native communities ranged from 1 to 7 years. Data regarding respective students’ ages were not formally gathered, but all were in their 20s to early 30s during the time that interviews took place.

Only a limited number of community Elders (n = 5) residing in the Twin Cities metro area were identified via the investigators’ contacts and among the Elders, themselves. Three agreed to participate. One identified as male; two as female. They identified themselves as members of the Saginaw Chippewa Nation, a Native American tribe located in central Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, a Native American tribe located in east-central Minnesota; and Leech Lake Indian Nation Ojibwe, a Native American tribe located in northern Minnesota. Two had earned master’s degrees; one was currently enrolled in a master’s program. They work in social work, education, and a government organization.

Analysis

Data were organized into patterns, themes, and categories through an iterative reduction method (Crabtree & Miller, 1992; DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006; Fackler et al., 2015). This included a seven-step thematic analysis methodology. First, an overall sense of the gross data base was gained by reading all of the transcripts. Second, initial reflections about emerging categories and themes from the transcripts were recorded. Third, the first and second authors thoroughly and independently visited each transcript again. They then collaboratively summarized each transcript in accord to its core substance. Fourth, a list of all topics that emerged from the data was compiled, and similar topics were clustered into major, unique, and miscellaneous groupings. Fifth, transcripts were revisited with the intention of abbreviating topics as codes, and then pairing said codes to respective text segments. At each coding stage, discussions took place until any areas of disagreement across independent coders—authors—were resolved. Sixth, categories were formed from the most descriptive wording for topics upon identifying them. This step aided in reducing the total list of categories by assembling related themes together. In the final step, assimilated themes and categories were arranged into a comprehensive picture. Data saturation was confirmed about two-thirds of the way into the coding process for students’ interviews. Data saturation was not reached with Elders’ interviews due to small sample size. However, and in accord with sentiments communicated to us by said Elders, we maintain that we should present Elders’ shared wisdom in this account. Elders participating in the current study, in addition to their status as community custodians, have engaged in—and guided—health research with urban-dwelling Indigenous communities for several years. Their collective wisdom thereby encompasses a wide range of information that is reflective of their community’s collective interests. These data serve to situate what students shared in a culturally responsive and better-contextualized manner.

To ensure trustworthiness in findings, the first author engaged in ongoing memoing about her personal experiences, thoughts, and reactions across all data collection, analyses, and write-up phases. She processed these extensively with the second author during ongoing meetings. She maintained an audit trail of original codes and analysis decisions. Finally, study participants were engaged in member-checking sequences, wherein they—students and Elders alike—perused the investigation’s results and offered confirmation, feedback, and further details as they saw indicated.

Lessons learned: students

Students’ learning processes-resources

As does learning about Native perspectives requires continuous effort, a general learning process was evident from students’ interviews. First, they consistently described Elders as kind in correcting mistakes and responsive to questions about a myriad of topics, like customs and rituals in gift-giving, taking off eyeglasses during prayer, and going counterclockwise while dancing. Elders are expected to presume such teacher-roles, and they often do this through storytelling. These processes also facilitated a strong sense of closeness. One student said, “I really enjoyed learning from the Elders, especially, and the respect that they’re given that they have earned and that they, in turn, give back to us as people who respect them, I found that just very moving” (S4). Showing respect to Elders as teachers not only contributed to the overall trust-building process; it also became a learning resource for students.

Second, non-Native persons who have a history of working with Native communities can be mentors for novice students and researchers. For example, all students expressed that under the mentorship of one of the co-leaders of the FEDS—who is a White, western man—they felt more confident in interacting with the community. One said, “Once I was getting involved in this research, what I learned a lot was from [name]. And one thing he told me is that, I think, it was very important to pay attention to detail” (S2). Students also found that their more experienced peers, who had longer involvement with the community, were helpful. They served as guides in research-oriented tasks, such as measuring blood pressure. One said that it is “nice to either have a familiar face and then maybe that person turns into your mentor . . . [and are] open to teaching in the sense of community teaching” (S5). In general, learning from Elders and more experienced personnel were described as indicators of a humble learner’s approach, which is essential in building a trustful relationship.

Third, most students described that attending orientations offered by different programs or organizations, such as FEDS or a local Diabetic Foot Clinic, were helpful. These were delivered by professors, Native researchers, and Elders—all of which served as good starting points for seeking resources related to Indigenous groups. Other strategies included inviting guest speakers, especially if the member is in a position of privilege and power, such as an existing professor within the institution, to avoid tokenizing anyone.

In addition to trainings, books and supplementary documents were also characterized as useful. One student described booklets from class orientations and a CBPR research group: “How did they divide into different tribes? . . . and also what kind of ritual, and why they’re doing this kind of ritual? and why always the man doing the drums, not the woman?” (S7). Program websites, such as the Minnesota Department of Health’s (n.d.) site, can be a good starting point from where students and researchers can find other useful resources. Students also mentioned books, documentaries, and auto-ethnographies as good resources, including “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples” (S6; male student) and “A Good Time for the Truth: Race in Minnesota” (S5). Said training programs and educational documents can help improve cultural perspectives and historical knowledge among students, which can better prepare them for research with Native communities.

Another way through which students learned is by participating and volunteering in Native community events. One shared, “I did go to two Pow-wows [Native American gatherings that typically involve a variety of social and cultural activities]. One was at the University, and much smaller and was a good introduction to their Native dance . . . [and] regalia” (S1). Such shared experience reinforces lessons on perspective-taking, insofar as frequent interactions with Native communities can better ensure accuracy of learned viewpoints.

Students’ suggestions specific to research methodology

Students described several approaches to trustful and authentic research collaboration, including people-centered methods and scholarship that are driven by the community. First, researchers are encouraged to evaluate their study focus. They can self-reflect regarding what brings them to the work and why they care. As one student explained her motivation regarding taking part in FEDS: “To me, that would be the most important message—that this [FEDS] is for Indigenous people, and by Indigenous people” (S1). Others echoed this in emphasizing how projects should be designed in such a way that inform policies, programs, or interventions that benefit the community—versus, for example, benefiting a student with data for a school project that only benefits that student. Second, once focus of the research is determined, researchers should seek the community’s perspectives and co-define investigative questions together. Even if researchers go into the community with an idea about what their questions will be, they should be prepared to modify the questions as the community prefers. One said,

A really great way is early on, instead of you coming up with a question, have . . . like a Town Hall . . . gain community perspective on . . . what is something that people [of the Native community] would like to research? (S5)

When the benefit of the community is at the heart of the research endeavor, authentic discussions and genuine consideration of their feedback is a must.

Third, in terms of choosing a research methodology, researchers can first consider existing ones that can be effective in working with Native communities. Students identified CBPR as one such approach that gives researchers the opportunity to get involved with communities at the ground level. For example, one explained that a “community-based program takes a long time to get going, but now that it is established, I think that’s the key to the research in making not only, like, the outcomes, but having the trust” (S3). Reflective of initially described learned lessons, researchers can therein build trustful, reciprocal, and collaborative relationships with community members (Berge et al., 2009; Mendenhall et al., 2018).

Fourth, to ensure respectful and trustful data collection procedures, students shared strategies that they found helpful. One strategy is not to interact with participants in ways that could make them “feel weak” or “feel defeated” (S5) while collecting data that are sensitive—like weight or body mass index. As researchers take this approach consistently and vigilantly, participants in health programs and scholarship will be more willing to open up and share their experiences. As part of creating a comfortable environment, one student advised: “If you just come in and say . . . ‘How are you today? What’s been going on in your life?’ I think that’s what built the trust” (S5). Relatedly, researchers can promote community members’ comfort with participation by shifting attention from task-oriented data-collecting to more person-centered approaches.

Fifth, careful attention to interpreting research, especially before publishing findings, is indicated. For example, students recommended having community members, including Elders and Native researchers, take part as co-authors to recognize the contributions from everyone involved. Along the way, then, investigative rigor is balanced—across a variety of investigations and projects—with the voices and perspectives of community members from which data are drawn:

I feel . . . this [involving with the community]is the most important thing . . . being open with what you’re studying and being open with the results before maybe, you make it public. So, they can talk to you about it and . . . clarify any questions that they have or . . . Just talking to them, especially the Elders. (S10)

Sixth, disseminating research to nonacademic audiences is a duty and responsibility of researchers, and they should honor it in ways that accurate, comprehensive, and culturally appropriate. Students maintained that researchers should ensure that study results reach larger populations than wholly academic ones—like refereed journal articles or professional guild conferences. One advised: “Talk to the community members and see . . . Where do they think this information should go? Where is this information going to matter the most?” (S3). Health fairs, Native service organizations’ newsletters, and local Pow-wows—gatherings that typically involve both social and cultural activities—often reach more community members than academic publications or forums do. It is also essential to evaluate the level of literacy, including health literacy, of targeted audiences for dissemination. Informal verbal information sessions or sharing experiential stories, for example, can be some of the most effective ways for delivering results to community members. To benefit lay populations, results should also reach other groups, such as governments, policy makers, and nonprofit organizations.

Advice from elders

Our three Elders, hereafter referred to as E1, E2, and E3, shared their advice about conducting appropriate research with Native communities. Overall, consensus was observed regarding the importance of understanding Native perspectives and building trustworthy connections in scholarship.

Implications for research

According to both students and Elders, building a trusting relationship—first—between Native groups and professional investigators is essential. Doing this has been strongly emphasized in extant literature (Burnette & Sanders, 2014; Claw et al., 2018; Lowe et al., 2011). However, the current study contributes to the continuous process of how to build said relationships. These foci are elucidated by what participants shared regarding beneficial resources for novice non-Indigenous researchers, how to approach and engage members and Elders of Native communities, and how to incorporate Native perspectives across specific stages of research and dissemination.

Initial distrust of researchers is not something that they should take personally; it stems from a long history of shared trauma imposed by colonists—historical and present-day—through a myriad of oppressive, exploitative, misrepresentative, discriminatory, and even murderous sociopolitical and environmental acts (Au, 2022; Krusz et al., 2020; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021; Walters et al., 2018). Investigative work must advance with focus, processes, and outcomes that evolve in collaboration with community members, and that is conducted in ways that ensures mutual gain. From there, other practices—such as acknowledging and incorporating cultural perspectives into scholarship, listening and observing Native ways of knowing, and understanding roles, rules, and etiquettes—are important to build transparent and trustworthy relationships (Brockie et al., 2017; Nielson & Gould, 2007). This can be an unfamiliar process to novice non-Native researchers, which is why learning from other students’ experiences can be helpful. Community members should be involved with data collection processes—from identifying what is important to evaluate to how data are collected and analyzed. Other scholars have supported this, maintaining that Native people should be in control of what knowledge is shared (Brayboy & Deyhle, 2000), and that Native ways of storytelling and symbolism should be honored in this sharing (Drawson et al., 2017).

An important contribution of current findings is that Elders’ and students’ descriptions of such collaborative approaches add detailed suggestions about the initiation and conception of research foci. For example, reach out to a Native researcher; connect with a local Native-serving organization; attend local Native gatherings like a Pow-wow; take part in a town hall like gathering to ask about what communities’ research interests are. These step-by-step suggestions can guide future student researchers as they plan to work with Native communities. These tenets should extend to data interpretation, too, as power is shared between researchers and study participants and multiple perspectives are honored (Brayboy & Deyhle, 2000).

Throughout these processes, participants in the current study and authors of existing literature promote(d) the importance of co-creating investigations with Native communities. For this purpose, CBPR was frequently cited. This is “an action research approach that emphasizes collaborative partnerships between community members, community organizations, health care providers, and researchers to generate knowledge and solve local problems” (Berge et al., 2009, p. 475). CBPR provides opportunities for capacity building, equity, tribal oversight, training, and inclusion of community research team members, and uses assessment and intervention tools that are culturally appropriate. However, certain practices, such as cultural humility, equal sharing of power and resources, mutual respect, co-learning, and skill development, can determine the success of the partnership. This is where shared experiences of students and wisdom of Elders can play a role by outlining how humility can be practiced while in the Native community. Relationships that are reflective of the described humble learner’s approach can help researchers to better understand community values, practices, and ways of knowing. Researchers can then work with Indigenous groups to develop studies that are better received and understood by Native participants.

Following the co-creation of research, transparent reception and delivery of study results can help allay commonplace misunderstandings or professionally led—and sometimes disrespectful or clumsy—research methods advanced by non-Indigenous scholars. Thus, in line with current study findings—such as learning Native perspectives, practicing humility, leading with curiosity, and maintaining expected and appropriate behaviors—novice researchers should be aware of their responsibilities as investigators. It is crucial to disseminate study results within the local community. Academic papers, for example, tend to be written in a way that is dry and difficult to consume and accessible only by membership within academy through library systems with paid subscriptions to refereed journals. To benefit the community, then, study findings should be translated into everyday language—without academic jargon or esoteric statistics—and accessible through everyday settings like Pow-wows, local health fairs, and organizational websites (Brockie et al., 2017).

Implications for teaching

Traditional curricula in research methods rarely provide opportunities for learners to engage with communities in which scholarship is advanced. Beyond promoting a strong stand in “teaching concepts, procedures, and basic skills,” instructional approaches must adopt strategies that prepare learners for real-life challenges by developing their critical thinking, problem solving, and research skills (Grabinger et al., 2007, p. 1). The current study, in this case, can contribute by informing traditional instructional design methods about some learners’ and community members’ experiences and discourses.

Resources for learning that were identified by students and Elders are a good starting point to get to know Native cultures and histories. Several sources can aid non-Native investigators’ learning—including guidance from community Elders and members (Nielson & Gould, 2007), learning from existing literature like books and documentaries created by Native writers, Native anthropological reports, classroom experiences (Cook & De Mange, 1995; Mail et al., 2006), and observational learning (Claw et al., 2018; Kawulich, 2011). Learning, too, from non-Native experienced personnel, like peers or faculty members, with long-standing experience in this work can be informative. An amalgamation of classroom learning, community teaching, and observational learning should be incorporated into any research training endeavor.

Research teachers should adopt suggested strategies, such as inviting guest speakers, to ensure that students are better prepared to work with Native communities. Using resources suggested in this study, like designing coursework guided by the book called Decolonizing Methods by Linda T. Smith (2012), can equip trainers to create a scaffolding upon which new knowledge about Native research methodology is built. Furthermore, trainers should create opportunities for students to work directly with Native communities. Once in the community, students can gain firsthand learning about tribal histories, related insights about local etiquettes, and ways of living (Brockie et al., 2017). Illustrative of this are students described in the study who gained cultural competency about gender roles, do’s and don’ts in prayer ceremonies, Elders’ roles, gift-giving customs, and respect for the Creator or Mother Nature.

Strengths and limitations

The sample engaged in this study is both a strength and a limitation. Participants were predominantly connected to an established CBPR program (Mendenhall, 2021; Mendenhall et al., 2010, 2012). A strength, then, lies in this already established University and Community partnership. Student participants who shared their experiences depicted a consistent pattern—that is, learning from a welcoming and eventually trusting community. In addition, since Elders were also connected to FEDS and other partnered community programming, their advice, based on their long-term engagement with non-Native investigators, comprehensively contextualized and added to students’ suggestions and experiences. For example, when students expressed that knowing some etiquettes could have saved them embarrassment, Elders assured that open-for-all community events like Pow-wows are great opportunities to learn about etiquettes. This homogeneity in the sample gives the results more depth.

On the other hand, this homogeneous sample may not be an accurate representation of all students’ or new investigators’ experiences participating in Native research. A larger and more diverse sample could have increased data scope and saturation. For example, recruiting more male or LGBTQ+ participants could have brought in more depth to the learned experiences around gender roles in Native communities. Since a majority of the participants in the current study are female, gender roles seemed to be a common aspect noticed by them. The question remains if male and LGBTQ+ participants would have noticed this as much as—if not more than—female participants did. Another limitation to this homogeneous sample is that most of their experiences were derived from a health-oriented project; this leaves a gap in information about research targeting other topics like poverty, education, housing, or historical trauma. The same could be said, too, regarding the fact that this sample was derived from a single geographic—and primarily urban—area. The study sample consisted of only three Elders, all of whom are working in administrative or leadership positions at top agencies. Inclusion of more Native members of different statuses might have brought in more diverse insights to Native research approaches.