“Dear John”
Overriding institutional axiology by privileging Indigenous relational ethics
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21787601 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jodi John (0009-0009-4759-0574, Queen's University, corresponding author), H Castleden (0000-0002-3559-3059, University of Victoria) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 559-574 |
| Publication date | 2025-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-0161 • E-ISSN: 2047-6094 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/17470161241288649 |
| OpenAlex | W4403187240 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 18 |
Institutional ethical oversight of research involving humans conducted at Canadian universities is guided by the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2). Beginning in 2010, the TCPS2 included a chapter specific to research involving First Nations, Inuit, and Metis Peoples of Canada, which is intended to provide a framework for the ethical conduct of research with Indigenous communities. These institutional guidelines reflect progress in the way research is done with Indigenous communities. However, concerns remain about the ways in which these guidelines are taken up, interpreted, and operationalized by institutional research ethics boards, which include creating tensions and challenges for Indigenous scholars conducting research together with their own communities. The purpose of this paper is to describe some of the challenges and conflicting expectations we faced as an Indigenous doctoral student and non-Indigenous academic supervisor, navigating the axiological differences between institutional ethical oversight and community relational ethics with the aim of supporting other Indigenous scholars who may experience similar challenges and influencing policy change and relational engagement in ethical review processes in university settings. We outline the various critiques of institutional oversight of Indigenous research, share several examples of how we experienced the tensions and potential/actual harm that institutional power interference caused in the review process and how we worked through them, and demonstrate how, in our experience, it was not bureaucratic institutional procedures that protected community participants from risk, it was community relationships. We conclude by discussing implications and offering our suggestions for change
Axiology · Biology · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Indigenous · Political science · Social science · Sociology · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights · Law · Philosophy · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics · Ecology
Systemic disruptions
“I Don't Think that Any Peer Review Committee . . . Would Ever ‘Get’ What I Currently Do”
Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research
Developing Ethical Research Practices Between Institutional and Community Partners
Laying the Groundwork
Leashes and Lies
Implementing the Tri-Council Policy on Ethical Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Decades of Doing
Enacting Research Ethics in Partnerships with Indigenous Communities in Canada
A New Era of Indigenous Research
Indigenous geographies III
Participatory and community‐based research, Indigenous geographies, and the spaces of friendship
Insider-Outsider
Reconciling community-based Indigenous research and academic practices
Insider and Outsider Research
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |