The Board of Regents has endorsed a revised Indigenous research policy for Memorial University.

At its meeting on March 6, the board approved the Research Involving Indigenous Groups (RIIG) policy, which replaces the Research Impacting Indigenous Groups policy, initially approved in 2020.

RIIG continues to be an innovative policy in the Canadian university landscape.

The revised policy was informed by an extensive two-phased approach to review the policy through the lens of decolonization and responsible research, and to refine definitions and concepts.

A working group assisted with the first phase of review and produced a draft revised policy for open consultation throughout the university. Multiple consultations were held with internal and external stakeholders during both review phases. The Office of the Vice-President (Research)’s efforts were assisted by colleagues throughout its portfolio and an Indigenous advisory group.

The Gazette spoke with Dr. Paul Banahene Adjei, interim associate vice-president (Indigenous research), who led the review process.

JG: Broadly speaking, how is the revised policy different from the original version?

PA: The revised policy’s principles are still aligned with the original and we heard many times throughout consultations that this is an important policy for Memorial and research in general. We revised definitions, concepts and processes based on what we learned.

The name of the policy is changing to Research Involving Indigenous Groups, instead of impacting. The agreement in principle (AiP) previously required from Indigenous groups has shifted to evidence of community engagement. And definitions of key terms, such as Indigenous land, are more aligned with tri-agency standards.

“Indigenous Peoples want to be seen as co-creators, co-planners and co-managers of research carried out in their communities.”

The changes are meant to provide conceptual clarity to policy principles and better define what Indigenous research is. The revised policy guides the development of meaningful engagement with Indigenous partners for mutually beneficial research outcomes, shifting from research being transactional to research being about developing relationships that go beyond the lifecycle of a research topic.

JG: What do you mean by engagement?

PA: Research involving Indigenous Peoples and groups should not be transactional. This is a move away from researching on/for Indigenous Peoples to researching with Indigenous people. The distinction is important. Meaningful research engagement begins at the concept development phase of a research project, where Indigenous people are included in the decision-making process about what to research, how to research, when to research, what to be done with what is researched and continue throughout the whole lifecycle of the project. Such engagement provides an opportunity for Indigenous groups to be research partners, having voices in all aspects of the research and research outcomes.

JG: Would a researcher need documentation of evidence of community engagement to submit their application?

PA: In some cases, an application may be submitted prior to obtaining evidence of community engagement documentation. If a Memorial researcher has engaged with the applicable Indigenous group(s) but cannot obtain documentation prior to a deadline or there is another time-sensitive issue affecting the application, the researcher can submit a form to request submission pending evidence of community engagement. This form is available online.

JG: What kind of documents does Memorial accept to show community engagement for grant applications and contracts?

PA: There are a variety of ways to document community engagement. Some examples include a letter showing the project has successfully passed through the applicable Indigenous group formal research review process.

Another way is a letter on letterhead or an email from an authorized individual stating that the Indigenous group is aware of the application and supports it going forward.

Additional examples include a signature from an authorized individual from the Indigenous group acting in their official capacity as co-applicant, collaborator or partner on a project; a signed formal agreement with the Indigenous group; and the Committee on Ethical Research Involving Indigenous Groups may provide approval in lieu of evidence of community engagement in cases where there is no discernable Indigenous group(s) to engage for a project.

We have more guidance about this process on our website.

JG: Overall, what’s one lesson you learned from this review process?

PA: My Indigenous African elders teach me, “One who causes others misfortune also teaches them wisdom.” Past harmful practices from research have taught Indigenous Peoples across the globe that research is too important to be left alone in the hands of researchers. Indigenous Peoples want to have a say in how research involving them is conducted in their communities. This was clearly repeated throughout consultation and engagement that “nothing about us without us.” Engagements take many forms, including communities expressing interest in the research outcomes, but choose not to be directly involved, communities flatly refusing a research idea and community agreeing to be key partners (collaborator, co-applicant, co-creation, co-management and others). In the long run, respectful engagement is not about following Memorial’s RIIG Policy. It is about doing good and ethical research, something expected of every Memorial researcher.

JG: Where do researchers go if they have any questions about the revised policy?

PA: The policy and more details can be found online.

The Office of Vice-President (Research) is always available to answer any questions people may have. You can email them to IndigenousResearch@mun.ca. We are here to listen and help however we can.

Learn more about research at Memorial and check out Research Strategy 2023-28 to learn how we’re moving ideas forward.