Case Studies & Examples

Abstract

To help elevate the cultural significance of plants and preserve their knowledge, Indigenous knowledge holders agreed to advise a project team as they developed a planting guide for the Gichi-gami basin. As discussions began, the team quickly discovered differing expectations about what and how Indigenous knowledge would inform the final guide. To ensure a respectful integration of different knowledge systems within the guide, the team decided to pause, reevaluate their assumptions about what the final product would be, and adapt their approach to better welcome their collaborators. 

Read the full case study on the NERRS Science Collaborative website: Adjusting to Respect Different Ways of Knowing

Visit the project webpage to learn more.

Abstract

A university-led study of cultural ecosystem services in the St. Louis River estuary region in Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin worked with staff from a local band of Ojibwe to co-design a study of cultural ecosystem services. The approach included a community survey and interviews, which required that the project move through ethics review by both the university institutional review board (IRB) and the local band’s tribal IRB. The university and the local band each sought ownership of data collected based on their respective policies, which ultimately delayed the study nearly a year. Diverging from its stated policy, the university, with a waiver from the Vice President of Research, ultimately agreed to the band’s research data agreement. The band retained sole ownership of data and allowed university researchers the right to use the data for the study. 

Although this case study sets an example for future partnerships between Indigenous communities and universities, it also highlights that university openness in research policies may not include adequate consideration of the sovereign status of Indigenous communities to facilitate research partnerships among university and tribal researchers. Ideally, U.S. research institutions that wish to conduct research in partnership with sovereign nations should respect tribal data ownership policy, regardless of the university’s institutional policy. In this example, university open research policies–which did not explicitly address Indigenous sovereignty–fell short of the open research principles they intended to support. Universities need to formally adopt principles for ethical research with sovereign tribal governments to improve coordination and trust among university and tribal researchers and members. 

Read the full article: Navigating University Openness in Research Policy Inconsistent with Indigenous Data Sovereignty: A Case Analysis (Ethics & Human Research)

Background

Relationships between tribes and academic staff occur both at the personal level and at the institutional level; complications on either level can impact the entire network. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and data sharing plans (DSPs) help establish shared expectations for collaboration. DSPs should include guidelines for how data will be secured and protected, circumstances in which data may or may not be used, and relevant procedures to protect sensitive data and identities of individual communities or informants. For federally supported research, it is imperative to inform the impacted community that any data collected using public funding may be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other legal requirements.

Case Example

The South Slough NERR overlays and is directly adjacent to several dense, past Indigenous population centers. When Euro-American settlers came to the area in the 1850s, they quickly intermarried into several Indigenous families, several of which still host their clan name at landmarks in and around the Reserve. Although most of the agricultural and logging activity had ceased prior to Reserve designation in 1974, many residents still hunted, harvested, and boated around the lands and waters on a regular basis. 

As the Reserve matured and engaged with the community, trust eventually led to partnerships. Reserve staff were contacting the nearby tribes – the Confederated tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI) and the Coquille Indian tribe – on such a variety of projects that the Reserve and each tribe created memoranda of understanding (MOUs) which were formalized in 2012 and 2015. A memorandum of understanding is a nonbinding agreement that states each party’s intentions to take action, conduct a business transaction, or form a new partnership. Each MOU is unique and has slight differences reflecting the primary areas of interest and concern for each community. 

The South Slough Reserve and CTCLUSI also have a cooperative agreement in place which includes additional objectives on reciprocal indemnification, recovery of financial assistance, and shared use of facilities. CTCLUSI and the South Slough Reserve are in accordance to defend and indemnify each other from all claims. The methods for shared use of facilities follow the same etiquette for shared equipment, personnel, and technology: the Using Party shall comply with instructions of the Owning Party. Should any usual or ordinary maintenance of the shared item be required, the Owning Party remains responsible. However, if significant damage occurs, the Using Party must pay for repair.

The Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperative Agreement outline collaborative accords between South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve and CTCLUSI, respectively. As South Slough Reserve manages lands previously occupied and managed by ancestors of each tribe, both parties have a mutual interest in improving the understanding and stewardship of the region. The partnerships seek to increase effective resource management through combined efforts and resources; this includes shared use of equipment and technology, data exchange, shared use of personnel, and joint proposal development. The etiquette for shared equipment, personnel, technology, and data requires a written request from the party desiring use (the “Using Party”) and permission from the lending party (the “Owning Party”). 

Differences between the two agreements are minimal. The cooperative agreement expands on its guidelines for shared equipment; for example, requiring the replacement of supplies– including fuel–by the party that used them. The cooperative agreement also notes that under certain circumstances, the owner of certain equipment and facilities may charge a reasonable user fee. In comparison, the memorandum of understanding states that shared equipment will be free of charge to the requesting party. Any cooperators may terminate the memorandum of understanding in whole or part, at any time prior to expiration. By contrast, the cooperative agreement enforces mutual agreement in termination, otherwise a 30 day notice is required for either party to annul the arrangement.