Knowledge Synthesis Report

Michelle L. Dion, Chelsea Gabel, Claudia M. Diaz Rios, and Kelsey Leonard. 2017. Indigenous Futures: Research Sovereignty in a Changing Social Science Landscape. Knowledge Synthesis Report, Hamilton, ON: McMaster University, 72 pp.

• Executive Summary
• Indigenous Futures full Report
• Appendix A: Canadian Social Science Indigenous Research (CSSIR) database data collection, coding protocol, and codebook
• Appendix D: Indigenous Social Science Research Policy (ISSRP) bibliographic database

SSHRC has now released their final summary report as well.

Peer-reviewed publications

Michelle L. Dion, Claudia M. Díaz Ríos, Kelsey Leonard, and Chelsea Gabel. 2020. “Research Methodology and Community Participation: A Decade of Indigenous Social Science Research in Canada.“ Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 57, 1 (February). Data and research protocol. doi: 10.1111/cars.12270

Those engaged in community-based participatory research (CBPR) often comment on tensions between social scientific and community values, yet little systematic evidence exists about the relationship between social science research methodologies and community participation. We analyze nearly 500 peer-reviewed articles published between 2005 and 2015 on Indigenous issues in Canada, where policies encourage participatory research methods with disempowered groups. We find that research that includes Indigenous participation is more likely to include Indigenous epistemologies and participatory evidence sources and analysis methods. We also find that peer-reviewed research involving Indigenous participants often fails to go beyond minimum levels of consultation required by policies.

Claudia Milena Díaz Ríos, Michelle L. Dion, and Kelsey Leonard. 2018. Institutional logics and Indigenous research sovereignty in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Studies in Higher Education, 45, 2: 403–15. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1534228.

Abstract: The institutional logics of Western academic research often conflict with the epistemologies and goals of Indigenous peoples. Research sovereignty is a right but still an aspiration for many Indigenous peoples. National funding agencies and Western universities have sought to resolve these conflicts through various institutional and organizational settlements. We combined a systematic literature search with critical content analysis and synthesis to compare the prospect for Indigenous research sovereignty in Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. Our comparison of the strategies used to resolve conflicts between competing institutional logics highlights the limitations of segmentation and segregation as well as other barriers to truly blended, or reconciled, institutional logics in colonial government and Western university research institutions and organizations.