scholarly journals Bringing Ethics Review Home to Cowichan: Indigenizing Ethics Review in British Columbia, Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cowichan Tribes
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Preterm Births ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
United Nations Declaration

Cowichan Tribes’ territory, located in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, is experiencing an alarmingly high rate of preterm births compared to the national average of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. In response, and in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA), Cowichan Tribes is in the first year of a 3-year study to investigate causes. Cowichan Tribes’ Elders and community members are guiding the study to ensure it follows Cowichan Tribes’ research processes and to support self- determination in research. Furthermore, as a way to enhance reconciliation, Elders and community members guided an on-site ethics review on Cowichan Tribes territory. This article outlines the collaborative, in-person research ethics review process that Cowichan Tribes, Island Health, and FNHA completed on August 21, 2019. The purpose of this article is to provide suggestions other First Nations could use when conducting a research ethics review, and to explain how this process aligns with the principles of ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP®), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and above all, the Cowichan snuw’uy’ulh (teachings from Elders).

Shifting practise: recognizing Indigenous rights holders in research ethics review

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Julie Bull ◽  
Karen Beazley ◽  
Jennifer Shea ◽  
Colleen MacQuarrie ◽  
Amy Hudson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Research Review ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Ethical Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Institutional Ethics ◽  
Research Ethics Review

Purpose For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice. Design/methodology/approach The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands. Findings Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research. Research limitations/implications Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research. Practical implications The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed. Social implications What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past. Originality/value The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.

"WE ARE FIGHTING FOR OURSELVES" — FIRST NATIONS' EVALUATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESSES

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 367-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNIE BOOTH ◽  
NORM W. SKELTON
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Environmental Assessment ◽  
First Nation ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Collaborative Project ◽  
Indigenous Worldviews

This article presents results from research into the perspectives on environmental assessments of Canadian indigenous peoples, in particular British Columbia's West Moberly First Nations, the Halfway River First Nation, and the Treaty 8 Tribal Association. This collaborative project interviewed First Nation government officials and staff as well as community members to determine their analyses of what worked and, more significantly, what did not work in engaging and consulting indigenous people. This research identified significant failings in Canadian and British Columbia environmental assessment processes, including substantive procedural failures, relational failures between First Nation, provincial and federal governments, and fundamental philosophical differences between assessment processes and indigenous worldviews. Based upon their review of environmental assessment failings, the collaborating First Nations recommend a fundamental revision of environmental assessment processes so as to protect into the future their Treaty and Aboriginal rights and to ensure their survival as distinct and viable cultures upon the land.

A Novel Framework for Reflecting on the Functioning of Research Ethics Review Panels

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Macduff ◽  
Andrew McKie ◽  
Sheelagh Martindale ◽  
Anne Marie Rennie ◽  
Bernice West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Nursing Education ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

In the past decade structures and processes for the ethical review of UK health care research have undergone rapid change. Although this has focused users' attention on the functioning of review committees, it remains rare to read a substantive view from the inside. This article presents details of processes and findings resulting from a novel structured reflective exercise undertaken by a newly formed research ethics review panel in a university school of nursing and midwifery. By adopting and adapting some of the knowledge to be found in the art and science of malt whisky tasting, a framework for critical reflection is presented and applied. This enables analysis of the main contemporary issues for a review panel that is primarily concerned with research into nursing education and practice. In addition to structuring the panel's own literary narrative, the framework also generates useful visual representation for further reflection. Both the analysis of issues and the framework itself are presented as of potential value to all nurses, health care professionals and educationalists with an interest in ethical review.

scholarly journals Implementing a National Approach to Research Ethics Review during a Pandemic – the Irish Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Aileen Sheehy ◽  
Jennifer Ralph James ◽  
Mary Horgan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
High Standards ◽  
National Approach

The surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research studies involving human participants in response to the pandemic has meant that research ethics committees across the world have been challenged to adapt their processes to meet demand while retaining high standards of review. Ethics review during this pandemic remains essential to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of research participants, however research ethics committees are now faced with new, and often complex, ethics considerations and logistical challenges. This Open Letter looks specifically at the Irish experience of establishing a national approach to research ethics review amidst a global pandemic. This represents Ireland’s first National Research Ethics Committee, which provided the research community with an expedited and ‘single national opinion’ for ethics review for COVID-related research. The insights gleaned and lessons learned from the Irish experience may inform emergency responses to future pandemics or public health emergencies.

scholarly journals A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 406-408
Author(s):  
Brigitte Lemyre ◽  
Jaya P Bodani ◽  
Stefani Doucette ◽  
Michael S Dunn ◽  
Deepak Louis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Youth Health ◽  
Administrative Costs ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Preterm Born ◽  
Child Health Research

Abstract To be time and resource efficient in neonatal research and to answer clinically relevant questions with validity and generalizability, large numbers of infants from multiple hospitals need to be included. Multijurisdictional research in Canada is currently fraught with research ethics review process hurdles that lead to delays, administrative costs, and possibly termination of projects. We describe our experience applying for ethics review to 13 sites in 7 provinces for a project comparing two standard of care therapies for preterm born infants with respiratory distress syndrome. We welcome the current opportunity created by the Institute of Human Development Child and Youth Health and the Institute for Genetics, to collaboratively identify practical solutions that would benefit Canadian researchers, Research Ethics Boards, and children and families.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document