Past Research: Lessons Learned and Considerations

Research harms have a long history tied to European Colonialism, ethnocide, and genocide (Pacheco et al., 2013; Smith, 2013) and open acknowledgement of these historical harms has the potential to expose the genocidal and assimilationist agenda of U.S. policies and cultural agencies. Failing to acknowledge these past harms serves, instead, to maintain the hegemonic narrative supporting the colonial experiment. These abuses are not relegated to the past, however, and continue into recent times, including, for example, the 1989-1994 research project’s collection of Havasupai blood samples that were originally part of a diabetes study and were used for additional, unauthorized, and improperly consented research on topics such as schizophrenia, inbreeding, and population migration (Garrison, 2013). This unauthorized use of biological materials resulted in the Tribe suing the Arizona Board of Regents, an internal investigation (Hart & Sobraske, 2003), a settlement in the amount of $700,000, and the return of the Tribe’s blood samples (Harmon 2010). The following sections provide a few examples of harms done to Native American communities in the name of research.  The examples illustrate practices ranging from obviously unethical to those that might occur due to lack of familiarity with or full engagement of Native communities.

Ishi and the California Museum of Anthropology: Dehumanization

In 1911, the California Museum of Anthropology (the Hearst Museum) under the direction of Alfred Kroeber, brought Ishi, a Yahi man, to live at the museum as a ‘living exhibit’. Ishi’s community had been eradicated through the genocide perpetrated on Native Californians by the California government and missionization and Kroeber took the opportunity to study Ishi and his language for the five years Ishi lived at the museum before dying of tuberculosis in 1916.

Within the field of Anthropology and Museum studies, the acknowledgement of the harm wrought on this individual remains contentious, with some entities openly addressing this harm and others maintaining a narrative of beneficence and ‘contribution’. The Hearst Museum publicly acknowledged that Kroeber “used their unequal relationship to advance his own career and the Museum’s popularity” and that Ishi was “objectified” and held in “indentured servitude” (Hearst Museum, 2017).  In 2000, as the result of tireless work by Maidu, Redding, and Pitt River Tribes in California, Ishi’s ashes and brain were repatriated and reunited. Ishi is now buried in a secret location near Deer Creek, his homeland.

The Barrow Alcohol Study: Assumptions and Representation

The Barrow Alcohol Study (1979) was conducted among the Inupiat of Barrow (now Utqiagvik), Alaska. A project was commissioned by the Department of Public Safety of the North Slope Borough who was interested in addressing problems of alcohol abuse and associated deaths in the community. The department was also interested in receiving research results which might enable them to establish more effective programs to reduce morbidity and mortality (Foulks, 1989). A consulting firm from Seattle was contracted to conduct the work by the North Slope Borough. That firm, which was directed by a former church minister in Barrow, then subcontracted with a sociology research center in Philadelphia called the “Center for Research on the Acts of Man” (Balestrery, 2010).

The study team interviewed 88 Inupiat over the age of 15, or 10% of the community at the time based upon a demographic report (Balestrery, 2010). The interviews asked about alcohol use and associated behaviors. Each study subject was also given the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test, a methodology that was questioned by many researchers (Mohatt et al., 2004).

The researchers released their report entitled “The Inupiat, Economics and Alcohol on the Alaskan North Slope” along with a press release. Results showed that 72% of the sample population were alcoholics. Results also led researchers to differentiate alcohol trends between those they considered to be the more traditional Inupiat and the more acculturated Inupiat. The New York Times ran a front-page article in 1980 titled “Alcohol Plagues Eskimos” (Mohatt et al., 2004) and claimed that the community was committing suicide with alcohol by fueling high rates of violence and death. Researchers interviewed for the article stated that the broader Eskimo society was alcoholic and not expected to survive long into the 20th century.

Community members felt humiliated and stigmatized not only within Alaska, but nationally. They had never been presented with preliminary results or given the opportunity to comment on either study design or research results. One consequence has been ongoing reticence by many Alaska Native communities to allow any research on substance abuse because of mistrust and the lack of respect shown to them (Mohatt et al., 2004).

Ayahuasca: Data sovereignty and natural resources research

Prior reflection on possible harms through research is critical, even when a research project does not engage with Tribal or Indigenous community members directly. Research on natural resources, such as plants, animals, habitat quality, ecosystem services, and so forth, could cause unintended harm through the publication of location, phenology or other information on natural resources. As an example, researchers may publish on the location of plant populations as a standard part of ecological methodology, with or without realizing that these plants are of cultural significance to Indigenous Peoples and threatened by commercial harvest. In time, commercial harvesters may use the information in the publication to identify and harvest the plants in that location, depleting the community of valuable and potentially rare cultural gathering areas. This location information could also be used by others to identify fieldsite or educational field trip locations, all of which could impact the relationship of Indigenous Peoples to that site. The important point here is that not only research with Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, but also research that does not intend to engage with Tribal or Indigenous peoples, but often still occurs on Indigenous land and applies to Indigenous resources can, and likely will, have some impact on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples and Nations. While not all impacts would be negative, prior communication with Tribal Nation representatives and/or cultural practitioners would help clarify potential benefits and risks associated with a particular project and therefore help prevent further research harm.

Publication of information on the traditional uses of plants or animals could also lead to unintended harm, including through cultural appropriation or commodification of intellectual property. Ethnobiologists often publish information on plant or animal uses within an Indigenous community, and this information could later be used to develop products or medicines. One serious ethical issue with this product development is that financial and other benefits go to the producers of those products and not to the originators of that knowledge. Various legal and ethical frameworks have been developed to address this issue, but it still persists. Another serious issue is cultural appropriation. The popularization of ayahuasca, a sacred, plant-based psychoactive decoction, for example, has led to a multi-million dollar tourist industry around the use of ayahuasca by individuals with no cultural connection to this plant (Coe & McKenna, 2017). This industry is based on the cultural appropriation and commodification of Indigenous intellectual property and, for some, is a profanation of sacred rituals (Tupper, 2009). Further, the popularization of ayahuasca has led to its overharvest, threatening some populations. Research always has multiple impacts, positive and negative, and prior consideration and communication with Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples can avoid causing further harm, and potentially facilitate beneficial outcomes.

“Contemporary Classic”: A case of academic researchers bringing a project or proposal to Tribal community with planned/assumed benefits for Tribes

Though in the preceding examples perception of the harm to Tribal communities may seem relatively clear to most contemporary researchers, much more common circumstances may arise that are less obvious and may seem benign at first glance, or even be assumed to be beneficial.  As an illustration, consider a case in which academic researchers generate a proposal and receive funding to pursue a project that includes a component to achieve “Broader Impacts” (as is common for National Science Foundation grants) through recruitment of Tribal students and education outreach with the Tribal community.  On the surface, this may not only seem benign, but it would be common for the researchers to assume that the Tribal community would welcome the project’s efforts, since what they planned aimed to yield benefits for Native students and the Tribal community.  What are the potential problems with such an approach?

First, if the researchers did not vet their proposal with the Tribal community prior to its being funded (e.g., typically via a Tribal council), then the proposal itself was disingenuous in having implied Tribal cooperation without such commitment. Second, without Tribal approval, it is problematic for researchers to assume that their proposal would a) do no harm and/or b) address Native student or Tribal community needs. In part, this is because non-Tribal individuals simply lack the context to perceive genuine needs, let alone the range of possible forms of harm. Finally, such well-intentioned efforts can contribute to the prevalence and maintenance of what is commonly referred to as the “white savior” complex (Lawrence & Dua, 2005). Rather, in such a process Tribal experts and leaders should be consulted, and not simply as an afterthought of a last-minute “checking of the box” prior to proposal submission.

Further, assumptions about what might benefit Native Nations may be based not only on lack of awareness of Tribal needs, but also on erroneous assumptions about Tribal circumstances. One potential harm that may arise from this lack of relationship with a particular community and the resulting lack of familiarity with the community’s circumstances is research framed in terms of deficit. Deficit framing focuses research questions on assumptions of what communities are ‘lacking’, often relying on stereotyped assumptions, failure to consider structural causes of this lack.  (Davis & Museus, 2019). Critiques of deficit framing argue that this research approach focuses on communities’ “‘unfavorable conditions,’ the existence of “environmental” challenges, or racial disparities in educational outcomes” (ibid) and and resulting in blaming the victim for the perceived deficit, which often serves to maintain hegemonic ideologies and structures.

As such proposal elements are developed, more meaningful engagement would include Tribal representatives as active collaborators from an early stage, in a partnership marked by respectful attention to relationships and reciprocity (see code of ethics).  This engagement should also be marked by a sincere willingness to revise proposals/plans in response to feedback from Tribal partners.  An approach marked by authentic collaboration and these traits will be more likely to succeed in actually serving Native students and Tribal communities.