The Canadian Geographer

Le Géographe canadien

Moving from research ON, to research WITH and FOR

Indigenous communities: A critical reflection on
community-based participatory research

Rhonda Koster
School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism, Lakehead University

Kirstine Baccar
Economic Development, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Thunder Bay

R. Harvey Lemelin
School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism, Lakehead University

Research projects conducted on Indigenous communities have largely been developed within a dominant
Western research paradigm that values the researcher as knowledge holder and the community members as
passive subjects. The consequences of such research have been marginalizing for Indigenous people globally,
leading to calls for the decolonization of research through the development of Indigenous research paradigms.
Based on a reflexive analysis of a five-year partnership focused on developing capacity for tourism development
in Lake Helen First Nation (Red Rock Indian Band), we offer a way of understanding the connection between
Indigenous research paradigms and the western construct of community-based participatory research as a
philosophical and methodological approach to geography. Our analysis shows that researchers should continue
to move away from methods that perpetuate the traditional ways of working ON Indigenous communities to
methods that allow us to work WITH and FOR them, based on an ethic that respects and values the community
as a full partner in the co-creation of the research question and process, and shares in the acquisition, analysis,
and dissemination of knowledge. Our reflection also shows that when research is conducted on a community,
the main beneficiary is the researcher, when conducted with, both parties receive benefit, while research for the
community may result in benefits mainly for the community. We further contend that any research conducted
within a community, regardless of its purpose and methodology, should follow the general principles of
Indigenous paradigms, and respect the community by engaging in active communication with them, seeking
their permission not only to conduct and publish the research but also with respect to giving results of the
research back in ways that adhere to community protocols and practices.
Keywords: Indigenous research paradigms, community-based participatory research

Évoluer de la recherche SUR vers la recherche AVEC et POUR les collectivités autochtones : Une
réflexion critique sur la recherche participative axée sur la communauté

Les travaux de recherche réalisés sur des collectivités autochtones s’inscrivent dans une large mesure dans le
cadre du paradigme dominant et occidental de recherche qui reconnaı̂t la valeur du chercheur en tant que
détenteur du savoir, alors que les membres de la collectivité sont considérés comme des sujets passifs. Les
pistes de recherche qui en découlent et les résultats obtenus ont pour effet de marginaliser les populations
autochtones partout sur la planète. Ce constat est à l’origine d’une mobilisation en faveur de la décolonisation
de la recherche qui passe par l’élaboration de paradigmes autochtones de recherche. Nous effectuons une
analyse réflexive d’un partenariat mis sur pied il y a cinq ans afin de renforcer les capacités du secteur du

Correspondence to/Adresse de correspondance: Rhonda Koster, School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, Lakehead Univer-
sity, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay ON P7B 5E1. Email/Courriel: rkoster@lakeheadu.ca

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210

DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00428.x

C Canadian Association of Geographers / L’Association canadienne des géographes
196 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin

tourisme au sein de la collectivité. Le but de cette analyse est de comprendre le lien entre les paradigmes
autochtones de recherche et le concept occidental de la recherche participative axée sur la communauté, et de
faire émerger une approche philosophique et méthodologique en géographie. Il en ressort que les chercheurs
devraient résolument renoncer aux méthodes qui perpétuent les approches traditionnelles qui se penchent SUR
les collectivités autochtones et avoir recours plutôt à des méthodes collaboratives POUR et AVEC elles. Ces
méthodes s’appuient sur un code d’éthique qui respecte et valorise la collectivité comme un partenaire à part
entière dans la définition conjointe de la question et du processus de recherche, ainsi que dans l’acquisition et la
diffusion des connaissances. Nous soutenons en outre que les travaux de recherche effectués au sein d’une
collectivité, indépendamment de leur objet et méthodologie, devraient se conformer aux principes généraux des
paradigmes autochtones. Ils devraient par ailleurs gagner le respect de ces collectivités en assurant une
communication active et en agissant avec leur permission, non seulement pour mener à bien la recherche, mais
aussi pour publier les résultats de recherche et leur en faire profiter conformément aux exigences protocolaires
et aux pratiques propres à la collectivité.
Mots clés : paradigmes autochtones de recherche, recherche participative axée sur la communauté

Introduction calling Canada home since approximately 1655–

Absolon and Willett (2005) suggest that locat-
ing ourselves within our research is one way
of ensuring accountability, building trust, and
decolonizing research. Within many Indigenous
cultures, locating yourself at the beginning of
a meeting is a cultural tradition that serves to
identify who you are and your connections to
the broader community. To respect this tradi-
tion, we begin by locating ourselves. Kirstine
(the community partner): On my maternal grand-
mother’s side, I am descended from England, and
on my grandfather’s, I am First Nation. I have
lived most of my life in Nipigon, Ontario. I knew
very little about my First Nations culture until
the birth of my son 18 years ago, when I de-
cided to ensure he had an opportunity to learn
about our people. For the past eight years I have
lived on-reserve. I wish to continue volunteering
in my First Nation to ensure our people regain
and retain our cultural heritage, work collabo-
ratively to ensure development within our com-
munity, and to ensure our treaty rights are not
infringed. Rhonda (one of the researchers): I am
a third generation Canadian of Austrian descent.
I grew up on the Canadian Prairies in small agri-
cultural towns where I learned the value of com-
munity and the importance of each individual’s
contributions to that community. As a mother,
wife, friend, and professor, I have continued to
nurture and develop my commitment to ensuring
that what I do benefits more than just me. Har-
vey (one of the researchers): My family has been
1660, when my ancestors landed on Île d’Orléans
in Quebec. For over three hundred years my fam-
ily has kept our French-Canadian traditions alive
by keeping our language and celebrating our cul-
ture. While most of my family grew up in Que-
bec, my roots and home are in Northern Ontario.
I left home to pursue my post-secondary edu-
cation and for employment opportunities. Dur-
ing this time, I was fortunate to work with
the Mohawk, Maliseet, Anishnabee, and Cree Na-
tions throughout Canada. In 2004, I accepted a
position with Lakehead University and returned
home. Through my work I now have a chance
to give something back to this part of Canada
(i.e., through academic work, research, and sweat
equity).
In beginning the article by locating ourselves,
we are signalling that there are different ways
of “knowing” and of gaining knowledge. Research
within the Western world has largely been guided
by what is termed the “Western Paradigm”; in
this paradigm, regardless of methods employed,
researchers and their expertise traditionally have
been portrayed as objective and disembodied
and thus privileged over those they study (Smith
1999). As several authors have illustrated (Smith
1999; Fletcher 2003; Wilson 2008; Kovach 2009),
this has often led to unethical research that
serves to perpetuate the denigration of certain
cultures (in Canada, particularly First Nations,
Inuit, and Métis) and to deny benefit to the com-
munity under examination. As a result, Indige-
nous scholars have called for a decolonization

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210


of research (Smith 1999) and the use and accep-
tance of Indigenous paradigms1 (Wilson 2008).
In addition, various research agencies (e.g., Cana-
dian Institutes for Health Research and the
National Aboriginal Health Organization) have de-
veloped policy documents that guide researchers
towards conducting their studies in ethical
ways, and further suggest that community-based
participatory research (CBPR) is a preferred
methodology to ensure ethical research and, in
particular, research that involves Indigenous peo-
ples (Fletcher 2003; Castleden et al. 2010).
Our aim is to examine our 5 year project part-
nership reflexively, focusing on what it means to
be involved in CBPR, and examining how that
fits within Indigenous research paradigms. While
there is limited consensus on the definition of
reflexivity (Dupuis 1999), Macbeth (2001, 35) of-
fers the following: “reflexivity is a deconstructive
exercise for locating the intersections of author,
other, text, and world, and for penetrating the
representational exercise itself.” He suggests that
reflexivity begins with scepticism about how we
have done research in the past, and demands ag-
gressive inquiry into the very possibilities of our
unreflective knowledge and practices (Macbeth
2001, 37). We have chosen this approach to re-
flect on our research project precisely because it
allows us to explore aggressively the process of
doing research in partnership. By conducting the
reflection jointly, this approach serves three ad-
ditional purposes. First, like the co-construction
of knowledge, collaborative writing includes the
voices of those previously not heard (Hollinshead
and Jamal 2001) and, as will be discussed, aligns
with Indigenous paradigms. Second, by engaging
with a community member in a reflexive process
formerly limited to researchers, academics and
community researchers can acquire greater un-
derstanding of the roles played in this project
(Hertz 1997; Dupuis 1999). As in all research
1
Guba and Lincoln (1994) and Patton (2002) define paradigm as
worldviews that help individuals and researchers make sense
of the world. Indigenous scholars suggest that a paradigm is
culturally and contextually specific and therefore there can-
not be one Indigenous paradigm and instead refer to Indige-
nous paradigms. Indigenous paradigms, however, are based on
similar principles. As such throughout this text, we use In-
digenous paradigms (plural) and refer to principles (meaning
those foundational elements that are common among Indige-
nous paradigms).
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 197
processes, open discussion of successful and less
successful strategies is an essential component
of community-based research (Lather 1986; Hen-
derson 1991).
Third, while past research has highlighted var-
ious aspects of CBPR relationships (see, for ex-
ample, Deloria 1991; Kurelek 1992; St. Denis
1992; Lykes et al. 2003), this research prioritizes
the views of the community partner (Kirstine),
without obscuring the researchers’ perspectives
(Rhonda and Harvey). We examined our research
project by analyzing the meaning of partner-
ship, the meaning of research, and how each
partner values the research process and out-
comes. Much has been written about Indigenous
research paradigms and principles (see for ex-
ample Smith 1999; Louis 2007; Wilson 2008;
Kovach 2009); clearly, the voices of Indigenous
researchers have increasingly been asserted, as
have those of non-Indigenous researchers work-
ing with Indigenous communities (for example,
Castleden et al. 2008; Lemelin et al. 2010). Our
aim is to honour the principles of Indigenous re-
search, by providing a community partner’s per-
spective on what CBPR means in her own voice,
distinct from the non-Indigenous research part-
ners she agreed to work with.
We begin with a review of the literature con-
cerning Indigenous research paradigms. This is
followed by a brief overview of our five year
project to provide a context for our reflexive
evaluation and to illustrate how we have moved
from doing research ON the community to work-
ing WITH and FOR them. We then reflect on the
meaning of partnership, of research, and how re-
search outcomes are valued by each partner. We
conclude by discussing the traditional ways of
working on, and the importance of contempo-
rary forms of working with and for Indigenous
communities.
Indigenous research paradigms
Indigenous research has an uncomfortable re-
lationship with the dominant Western research
paradigm that too easily can affirm colonial prac-
tices of no benefit to local Indigenous com-
munities (McGregor et al. 2010). Johnson and
Murton (2007) partially situate this tension
within the contrast between the Western belief
198 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
that to support claims of objectivity separates
humans from nature and Indigenous knowledge
systems that are based on the connection be-
tween humans and nature. The contrast is en-
hanced by the strategy of situating Indigenous
people as beings to be studied: as the “other,”
as part of nature, rather than as equal holders
of knowledge or collaborators in the creation of
knowledge. While a detailed review of the his-
toric relationship between Indigenous people and
non-Indigenous researchers is beyond the scope
of this article, the legacy of that relationship is
critical for situating the context of our analy-
sis and findings (see Smith 1999; Kovach 2009;
CIHR et al. 2010). Some researchers have come
to view established research practices as unethi-
cal, negative, exploitative, and marginalizing, and
thus perpetuating colonialism (Louis 2007; Wil-
son 2008; Kovach 2009).
As Castleden et al. (2010) illustrate, various
agencies within Canada have recognized the re-
sult of such research practices, have responded
by creating policies for the ethical conduct of In-
digenous research, and strongly advocate CBPR
practices. Castleden et al. (2008) remind us that
the roots of CBPR developed in the 1940s with
Kurt Lewin’s work on social justice and his cri-
tique of supposed researcher objectivity. Fletcher
(2003) suggests that CBPR has been developed as
a responsive and responsible research approach
in support of Indigenous peoples’ struggle for
political autonomy. Its philosophical foundation
is based on ideas of inclusivity, multiple perspec-
tives and ways of knowing, and acknowledge-
ment that research is not value free. According
to Fletcher (2003, 37–38), CBPR is based on a
number of principles, including: acknowledging
and addressing the imbalance of power; focus-
ing research on important community issues;
accepting multiple world views; fostering empow-
erment; developing community capacity; work-
ing with community members as partners;
approaching research as education; and respect-
ing the established protocols of working with
Indigenous people. While the development of
policies to guide research on Indigenous commu-
nities creates the space for more ethical research,
Indigenous scholars argue that research needs to
be conducted from a different worldview, as even
research strategies such as CBPR have evolved
out of conventional Western research paradigms
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
(Smith 1999; Louis 2007; Wilson 2008; Kovach
2009).
Indigenous paradigms are based on world-
views that are more suitable to Indigenous cul-
tures and provide the possibility for research
outcomes that respect and benefit the com-
munity (Smith 1999; Louis 2007; Wilson 2008;
Kovach 2009). Much like other theoretical discus-
sions (i.e., critical theory, constructivism), these
paradigms do not reject existing research prac-
tices (Smith 1999; Wilson 2008), but illustrate
that there are other ways of conducting re-
search that respect and protect Indigenous peo-
ple, that stop further misrepresentation and
colonialization (Louis 2007), and create authen-
tic research outcomes, even when carried out
in the discourse of Western research (Kovach
2005).
There is no single Indigenous research
paradigm, as ways of knowing and sharing
knowledge are context specific (Fletcher 2003;
Louis 2007; Wilson 2008; McGregor et al. 2010).
There are, however, underlying principles com-
mon to all Indigenous paradigms, including a
recognition that Western ways of thinking about
research processes are not the only ones; that
the goals of research should be determined
in ways that are sympathetic, respectful, and
ethical; and that research should be conducted
in ways that incorporate and are informed by
Indigenous perspectives (Louis 2007). Louis
argues that it is necessary to recognize and
accept Indigenous research methodologies,
quoting Steinhauer on the need “to ‘reframe,
reclaim and rename’ the research process so
that Indigenous people can take control of
their cultural identities, emancipate their voices
from the shadows, and recognize Indigenous
realities” (Steinhauer 2002, 70; Louis 2007,
133). Louis (2007, 133) suggests there are four
concepts—“relational accountability, respectful
representation, reciprocal appropriation, and
rights and regulations”—common to published
descriptions and discussions pertaining to
Indigenous paradigms.
Relational accountability acknowledges that In-
digenous ways of knowing are based upon re-
lationships between all life forms, which are
in turn based on respect for and appreciation
of what each can provide (Kovach 2005). When
applied to research, it assumes that all parts

of the research process are interconnected, re-
quiring that sincere and authentic investments
(defined beyond monetary terms) are made in
the community to develop a true partnership
between the researcher(s) and the community
(Kovach 2005; Louis 2007).
Respect requires researchers to be humble,
generous, and patient in co-creating the research
process with Indigenous people (Louis 2007). It
means being willing to accept the decisions of
the community and to work together openly and
honestly from the outset to determine how the
knowledge gathering will be conducted, shared,
and used.
Reciprocal appropriation recognizes that “all
research is appropriation” (Rundstrom and Deur
1999, 239) and requires adequate benefits for
both parties involved in the research. This im-
plies that, although the benefits for each party
involved may be different, they each can ex-
pect to receive something from the research. Ko-
vach (2005, 2009) explains that many Indigenous
cultures are based on collective approaches to
community, where everyone is responsible for
maintaining reciprocal and accountable relation-
ships to one another, the community, clan, and
nation, resulting in a sense of belonging. Con-
sequently, research outcomes must meet the re-
sponsibility and accountability criteria by helping
or serving the collective.
Rights and regulations refers to developing and
adhering to a research process that is collabo-
ratively created based on Indigenous protocols,
defined goals, impacts of research, and how the
knowledge gathered will be used (Smith 1999;
Louis 2007). It also means determining how the
community will confirm the results, how (or if)
the data will be published and reported, and how
the findings will be written-up to ensure accessi-
bility for not just the academy and policy arenas
but also the community.
There is no single process for conducting re-
search within Indigenous paradigms, but there
are some general steps that can be followed
(Fletcher 2003; Louis and Grossman 2009):
1. Form a research partnership with Indigenous
peoples and co-create the research process;
2. Discuss how the benefits of the research
should flow to the community, how the com-
munity should control the information gener-
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 199
ated, how it is to be used and how it will be
disseminated;
3. Develop a mechanism for Indigenous partners
to review and revise drafts of findings and en-
sure access to the final product; and
4. Develop and maintain relationships within
both Western ethics protocols and within
Indigenous cultural frameworks. Louis and
Grossman (2009, 4) suggest that “(This) (m)ay
mean bonds of lifelong service. . . (including)
mutual assistance outside of the boundaries
of academic studies, and discussion of per-
sonal and family perspectives.”
As a geographer, Louis (2007) argues that
the discipline and the larger academy needs to
continue to discuss and implement such prac-
tices in research regarding Indigenous issues.
Although CBPR is a methodology developed in
a western cultural context, its acknowledge-
ment of community requirements provides a
transitional methodological process towards In-
digenous paradigms. In the next section, we
propose how such a transition might occur, as
researchers move from working on Indigenous
communities, to working with and for them.
Unpacking geographical research ON,
WITH, and FOR Indigenous peoples
The scientific community is now much more likely
to talk about doing research for and with Aborig-
inal peoples than on them as was the case in the
past. (Fletcher 2003, 31, italics in original quotes)
The emerging Indigenous research paradigm in
Canada calls for conducting research by and with
(as opposed to on) Indigenous people. (McGregor
et al. 2010, 105, italics in original quotes)
Many researchers are encouraging others to re-
focus thinking and methods from working on to
working for and with a community (Max 2005).
These three prepositions are central to under-
standing the phases we associate with CBPR. As
we’ve indicated previously, researchers have his-
torically worked on Indigenous communities in
ways that are not based on CBPR principles, and
some researchers are still following this model.
Still others may begin this way (this idea will
be revisited later in the article). Researchers may
200 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
design a research project, go into the commu-
nity, collect their data through various meth-
ods, and leave. Despite potential community
interest in the findings, the researchers may not
consider it necessary to return to the commu-
nity to share the data or their interpretations.
The community simply functions as a passive
data source to serve the researcher’s informa-
tion needs. The objectives of the research are
defined by the researcher, and the benefits of
the research are often limited to those within
the academy or perhaps wider government policy
environments. While we acknowledge that this
takes place, the Tri-Council policy statement Ethi-
cal conduct for research involving humans makes
it clear that this approach is no longer accept-
able for research involving Aboriginal peoples of
Canada because of the Tri-Council’s core princi-
ples of “respect for persons, concern for welfare,
and justice” (CIHR et al. 2010, 8).
Doing research with a community means es-
tablishing a partnership between the community
and the researcher where the researcher is wel-
comed and the community participates in de-
veloping the research, setting its course and
outcomes, and in data gathering and analysis.
Both work together in creating positive change as
well as in composing reports, publications, and
presentations. Benefits from the research will be
gained by both parties, though, as noted before,
the benefits may be different for each partner.
For example, the benefits for the researchers are
likely to be academic publications, and for the
community the gains will vary, depending on the
project purpose. In our case, the community ben-
efit was tourism data and the opportunity to use
this data to host international visitors. Where the
research idea comes from (either the community
approaching the researcher or the researcher ap-
proaching the community) is not the critical is-
sue in our view. What is important in research
with a community is that both parties are in-
volved in the project design and evaluation, and
that both receive benefit.
Research for the community turns the relation-
ship around; community members contact the
researcher and request assistance in conducting
research for the community. While such work
will be within the researcher’s field of expertise,
it might not necessarily relate to the researcher’s
current projects or result in publications (which
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
might mean that it has little immediate profes-
sional value for the researcher). Instead, the re-
search serves only the community, but is beyond
their current capacity to undertake. In summary,
when research is conducted on a community,
the main beneficiary is the researcher; when con-
ducted with, both parties receive benefit; while
research for the community may result in bene-
fits mainly for the community.
Having unpacked research on, with, and for In-
digenous peoples, we now provide an overview
of our project to illustrate the context for our
reflexive evaluation and to demonstrate how our
partnership flowed through these phases. While
we started down the path of research ON, we
transitioned to WITH and, in some ways, FOR the
Red Rock Indian Band.
Project overview
In 2005, Rhonda and Harvey met with a tourism
operator in Manitoba to examine how to de-
velop rural tourism in the absence of significant
physical infrastructure. The operator used Ap-
preciative Inquiry as a framework for tourism
development (Koster and Lemelin 2009) and we
decided to examine its application in northern
Ontario. We received two years of Parks Canada
funding in 2007, and gave a presentation to the
Economic Development Committee of Nipigon,
Ontario to invite participation in the research.
The Red Rock Indian Band (RRIB) is located 1
km from Nipigon on the Lake Helen Reserve and
members from the reserve often hold positions
on the Nipigon town council. Hoss Pelletier, a
member of the RRIB and also a member of the
Nipigon Economic Development Committee, sug-
gested his community would be interested. He
and Kirstine Baccar were given permission by the
RRIB Chief and Council to act as community rep-
resentatives, and were given work time to partic-
ipate in the research.
The four of us worked with the operator
from Manitoba to create an “Experience Supe-
rior” workshop to explore ways of creating and
delivering experiential tourism, which required
identifying and developing tourism experiences
using the cultural and environmental assets
available within the region. The two day work-
shop was hosted by the RRIB in October 2007

and attended by approximately 40 people from
towns and reserves along the north shore of
Lake Superior. The workshop highlighted the
language (Ojibway/Cree), the culture (porcupine
quill crafting), the spirituality (medicine bags),
and the traditional foods (all local, provided
by caterers from the RRIB reserve) available
for tourism in the region but, in particular,
within the reserve. This was the first time that
the RRIB had ever hosted an event involving
outside people, and community members at-
tending were struck by its success, evidenced
through the appreciation, enthusiasm, and ideas
generated by attendees. The workshop pro-
vided participants with confirmation that tourism
developments based on locally available assets
were possible.
The energy, commitment, and positive feel-
ings emanating from the community made the
workshop a profound experience for both Har-
vey and Rhonda. We discussed the next steps we
had in our research plan and decided that we
should ask Kirstine and Hoss how they would
like to proceed. Although we had come to the
research with our own plan and process (re-
search on), we abandoned this direction and fol-
lowed the needs identified by Kirstine and Hoss
(research with), and our research became com-
munity and project-focused, with the aim of
developing tourism within the community based
on its current assets (cultural, environmental,
and infrastructure) and the capacities (including
interests) of its residents.
In year two of our project, we conducted a
formalized assessment of the value of the part-
nership to all parties. In addition to adjusting
our project agenda (we added a survey of the
community’s assets), this evaluation resulted in
a list of guiding principles for future partner-
ships. At the end of the second year, Hoss had
received an employment opportunity external to
the community and thus could not continue with
the project. We all felt the loss of his contribu-
tions, but our partnership had evolved to such
an effective cooperative relationship that the one
community member did not feel outnumbered by
two researchers.
During the period of funded research, the team
attended and co-presented at several conferences
and published together (Lemelin et al. 2009). In
addition, we worked for one another on a variety
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 201
of new initiatives, some for the benefit of the re-
searchers (a photovoice project), and others for
the community (a cruise ship itinerary and a cul-
tural program for a conference). In the following
sections, we provide a reflexive narrative of this
project partnership, to explore the meaning of
partnership in research and how we each value
the research process and its outcomes.
Understanding community and
researcher views of partnership,
research, and research outcomes
Following the emergent practice of co-
constructed narratives in autoethnography
(Ellis and Bochner 2000; Davis and Ellis 2008)
and building on the method used by Lemelin
et al. (2010), we examine our project partner-
ship reflexively through an analysis of three
questions:2
1. What is “partnership” within a community-
university research project?
2. What is research?
3. How are the outcomes of research valued by
each partner?
Each participant independently reflected on
these three questions for two weeks and then
provided responses to Rhonda (the lead author),
who edited the submitted text for grammar and
checked for fidelity with each author. As the pri-
ority was to give voice to the community part-
ner, we have combined the researcher reflections
into one and we present the verbatim reflection
of Kirstine on each of the three questions first.
We chose this narrative method (Davis and Ellis
2008) for its commitment to the co-construction
of knowledge, its recognition of multiple ways
of knowing and communicating, and its com-
mitment to co-authorship—all of which are crit-
ical to CBPR and especially to our argument in
support of adopting Indigenous paradigms in re-
search with Indigenous people.
2
See Castleden et al. (this issue, 160) for further exploration of
how other university-based geographers and social scientists in
related disciplines who engage in CBPR articulate their concep-
tual understanding of CBPR (meaning of partnerships, value of
research) and their research in practice.
202 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
Community perspective: Kirstine
Meaning of partnership. “Partnership” can be de-
fined in many different ways. If you look in the
dictionary you can obtain a variety of words
that show the benefits and challenges of work-
ing in a partnership. The first thing that de-
fines a partnership for me is the building of a
relationship/friendship.3 Ensuring that the indi-
viduals involved can work compatibly is key. It
didn’t take long to know that the partnership
with Rhonda and Harvey would work. Initially, I
thought we might just have the workshop and
be done, but when we had our second meeting
and they were asking for my input and direction,
I could see the friendship beginning to develop
and that this would be a longer term partner-
ship.
Partnership also means different parties work-
ing collaboratively on the same subject/project,
though they may have different goals and out-
comes than are expected. It also means that all
have input on the project; how information is
compiled, shared, and distributed; and that all
are recognized for their efforts. A good partner-
ship is one that understands these differences
and respects the goals and aspirations of the
different parties involved. A friendship!! A con-
tinued friendship when research is completed is
validation of a great partnership. Rhonda, Har-
vey, and I still have this friendship and con-
tinue to work together in different areas. A
number of examples illustrate this: I had to plan
an itinerary for a cruise ship that was coming
into the area and, due to short time lines, I
needed their help, which they provided. I have
helped when Rhonda has asked my advice on
culturally sensitive issues with some of her stu-
dents and I helped Harvey on a photovoice re-
search project in my community.
Meaning of research. It used to be that research
for me meant the collection of information/data
that is utilized for knowledge in that specific
area. In the past, research was collected, taken,
and used by researchers with nothing given back
3
For a detailed discussion on friendship in CBPR—between
researchers, between research partners, within and across
projects—see de Leeuw et al. (this issue, 180).
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
to the communities. Indigenous people were not
acknowledged as having any input on the re-
search compiled, were not compensated for the
information and time they had given to the re-
search, and the information that was taken from
the communities was often portrayed differently
than what was recorded, which led them to have
no trust in educational institutions. Today, re-
search means much more to me.
Following the first research partnership project
with Rhonda and Harvey (the “Experiential
Tourism Workshop”), a meeting was held to dis-
cuss how to proceed. Although Rhonda and Har-
vey had their own ideas for moving forward, they
asked Hoss and me for our thoughts. Our ideas
were far different from what they had had in
mind, but they liked our ideas, and saw that
there would be greater benefit to the community
from the next steps we had provided. This was
the start of a respectful, trusting, and very in-
volved partnership between Rhonda, Harvey, and
the Red Rock Indian Band. Our project devel-
oped its own guiding principles through mutual
respect. Rhonda and Harvey asked our advice on
how to engage the community and asked for in-
put on delivering information, and we informed
them of ways of working with the community.
For example, we provided advice on how to word
information to the community in terms that were
understandable to community members.
The ongoing research work with Rhonda, Har-
vey, and my community helped me to learn that
the gathering of research can be done in many
different ways, not only in an “academic” way.
For example, it is important to incorporate cul-
tural and traditional principles in obtaining re-
search, such as having a feast prior to data
collection-based meetings. It has taught me to be
tactful and respectful of how we go about col-
lecting information, who we share it with, and
what information is used. I have come to re-
alize that the “experts” are not only the aca-
demics involved, but the community members
who share their knowledge to inform and guide
the research project. Having community involve-
ment and participation in research is crucial due
to the fact that it is the people who are con-
nected to the area that have the information.
This establishes a better relationship between ed-
ucational institutions and communities, one that
builds trust and respect, gives opportunity for

information and knowledge sharing, and uses the
expertise of all parties.
This research has provided our community
with knowledge of tourism, capacity building
(i.e., training local band members to conduct the
research and providing opportunities for local
artisans to showcase their talents and crafts to
visitors), relationship building, economic partner-
ships, economic opportunities, and more. It has
shown us the opportunities that, in some cases,
have always been here in the community, but
that have never been capitalized on. In sum, our
research partnership has been positive and fol-
lowed a better process than what has happened
historically.
How research outcomes are valued. For me, there
is value in research when it benefits my com-
munity as a whole. This research project has
exceeded my expectations, as it allowed us
to participate fully in all aspects of the re-
search, it has helped to educate our leaders
and community members, it has created aware-
ness of tourism opportunities, it has provided us
with useable data for the development of other
projects, it has identified possibilities for diversi-
fying our economy, it has shown our community
the value of our culture and traditions, it has
showcased our community by allowing us the op-
portunity to take the lead on various tourism
research initiatives, and it has allowed us to co-
publish and co-present our findings with Rhonda
and Harvey.
Publications and presentations allows First Na-
tions and the academic partners to showcase
the work that has been completed. It allows the
First Nation to deliver their perspectives on the
project, so it is not a one-sided view or a solely
academic view. It also recognizes the work that
the First Nation contributes to the research.
Despite the workload, I like to be involved
in the entire process of research, publication,
and presentations. Most often, this means a lot
of discussion between Rhonda, Harvey, and me.
When I’ve found myself too busy, I’m happy to
just review and revise publications, but when I
have time, I like to fully participate. This is es-
pecially the case for presenting our work, as I
need to say my part in my own words. I find
that in everything we work on, I am always in-
vited to fully participate in the process as they
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 203
want my perspective, input, and clarification and,
as a result, I feel my knowledge is valued and re-
spected.
I never would have expected one workshop to
turn into an opportunity such as this. Working
side by side with the “right research partners”
(partners that work with the community) on re-
search that greatly benefits the progress of our
community has been an educational experience.
I wouldn’t change any of the involvement that
I’ve had working with Rhonda and Harvey. It has
been a very positive experience and relationship.
I have had the opportunity to work with other
researchers but have found that they work “on”
communities; they obtained the information from
us and were gone. Months later they may con-
tact us to give us a copy of what they have com-
pleted. I did not have that type of relationship
with Rhonda and Harvey. I always felt that they
were working with our community, which I view
as having followed ethical principles of working
in partnership.
Researcher perspective: Harvey and Rhonda
Meaning of partnership. For us, partnership
means that communities and researchers are
equally involved in setting the direction of the
research/project, they are working equitably
(based on their abilities and time available), and
the outcomes are jointly and openly defined.
This does not mean that the outcomes are the
same for both parties, but that each party must
know and respect what the other wants to get
out of the research and how it is going to
be used, and that both consent. Our focus on
equality and equity recognizes that there are
structural, financial, and power differentials that
must be addressed in partnerships (Chataway
1997; Lykes 1997; Lassiter 2005), and this means
that communication and negotiation are key
elements, as we discuss in the next section.
Several years and several projects later, our
research and relationships in various forms con-
tinue, although all four of the original people in-
volved in the project have moved on to different
projects (researchers) and jobs (community mem-
bers). For us, this is indicative of a partner-
ship that has evolved from on to with and
even for, based on the development of trust and
friendship. As Kirstine said, friendship has been
204 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
critical to us and we believe that friendship is a
natural extension of a partnership based on re-
spect, reciprocity, and relational accountability.
Meaning of research. Conducting academic re-
search is a requirement of our jobs and the
dissemination of research findings is expected by
funding agencies. For us, research is also a way
to give back to communities in the region. As
academics, research allows us to explore topics
that are of interest to us, but it also allows us
to use our expertise to address issues that are of
concern to community members. When research
is conducted with a community, time, honesty,
and transparency are required. By time, we mean
time for pre- and post-field research visits which
typically have an important social component. By
honesty, we mean negotiating the purpose and
expected outcomes of the research both for the
community and for ourselves, being clear about
our university’s and the funding agencies’ expec-
tations of us regarding the research, and of how
these expectations may place constraints on what
we can do. By transparency, we mean the will-
ingness to determine the research question and
methods to be used jointly and then to share
the data and research outcomes with the commu-
nity when the project is complete. The process of
research is also important, recognizing that the
knowledge gained through research is only avail-
able thanks to the generosity of people willing
to give of their time and knowledge (though we
would argue that this is the case for any method
where data is collected through human partici-
pants). As such, research requires that we engage
with people in a way that is respectful of their
culture, positions, and locations. The conclusion
to that process is giving the knowledge back in a
way that is accessible, for example by creating a
report for the community in language that is jar-
gon free (or even translated into their language),
not simply giving them a copy of an academic
publication aimed at another audience.
How research outcomes are valued. Research
outcomes can be seen as achieved where the
expectations of funding agencies have been met,
generally in the form of academic publications
and presentations. Our project has met these
requirements in a collaborative fashion that falls
within the maximal involvement criterion on
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
the continuum of research relationships with
Indigenous communities developed by the Inuit
Tapiriit Kanatami and the Nunavut Research
Institute (ITK and NRI 2007). Academic appre-
ciation of research outcomes is less important
to us than the value garnered by the research
partners who worked with us and by the com-
munity involved with the project. This larger
value was demonstrated in several ways: we
have been invited to work on tourism projects
for the community; community members clearly
regard us as trusted resources as they will stop
us to chat about the experiential workshop and
the tourism potential for their community; Hoss
now works in a tourism-related position that
he says he would not have received without
the experience of working on our collaborative
research project; and, importantly, both Kirstine
and the researchers (and earlier, Hoss) gained
the opportunity to present and author academic
publications collaboratively.
While attending an international conference
unrelated to this research project, Harvey en-
countered different views on the nature of co-
authorship. For many, co-writing requires the
actual drafting, writing, or editing of text, and
is sharply distinguished from other contribu-
tions such as providing information, translating,
and/or facilitating research processes in the com-
munity. Another more cynical view sees commu-
nity participation in writing an article as window
dressing for an academic and not meaningful to
a community. Having co-written several articles,
we take exception to both views, believing them
to be driven by a self-interested “expert-knows-
best” syndrome: both arguments allow the aca-
demics alone to determine the validity of the
participation and the value of the final product.
What is absent is any recognition of the work
and judgement of community members: with-
out facilitation, translation, discussion, and in-
terpretation with community members, there can
be no data, no findings, no analysis, and no
publication. Including an interested and engaged
community member as an equal co-author is es-
sential to the successful undertaking and anal-
ysis of the research. We agree with Castleden
et al. (2010) on the multiple ways partners can
contribute to publications and be considered
as authors, and with Huntington (2006) that
it is important to determine expectations of

publishing at the beginning of the research pro-
cess. We had several discussions regarding publi-
cation expectations with Kirstine and Hoss at the
outset of our project, outlining how they could
be involved as authors. As Kirstine has indicated,
the opportunity to participate and to determine
the level of participation is a critical element of
respectful partnerships.
We value both the research process and its
outcomes for what they can teach us. We have
learned about tourism capacity from this and
other projects, but perhaps what has struck us
the most is the resiliency of the Red Rock Indian
Band community members. We are constantly
amazed and awed by the personal strength and
conviction of the men and women who juggle
heavy workloads, take care of their families and,
at times, face tremendous adversity and tragedy,
and yet still find the time to join us in re-
search projects. We are honoured to work with
and learn from them.
Indigenous research paradigms and
CBPR: A discussion
Research, like life, is about relationships. (Kovach
2005, 30)
The power of Indigenous research principles
This project has clearly illustrated the value and
importance of Indigenous research paradigms.
Although a CBPR approach was not integral to
Harvey and Rhonda’s initial project, Kirstine and
Hoss led our partnership through a process
that followed CBPR principles because CBPR pro-
cesses are closely aligned with Indigenous re-
search paradigms. This is an illustration of the
power of Indigenous epistemologies/ontologies
and their importance in defining and creating
a context-specific Indigenous research paradigm.
This is particularly the case because Kirstine
and Hoss have indicated that they come from
a community struggling to regain and retain its
culture, language, and traditional practices, a
struggle Kirstine personally shares. Despite this,
she and Hoss led our project based on the prin-
ciples embedded in Indigenous paradigms. They
knew their community and how it functioned,
and that what was needed was to build the
awareness and capacity for tourism, not to test
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 205
the role of appreciative inquiry in tourism de-
velopment that Rhonda and Harvey initially pro-
posed. Working together executed a project that
met the most important needs of the community,
while also meeting academic needs.
What this illustrates to us is that when re-
searchers truly engage in CBPR practices, Indige-
nous paradigms can emerge; when researchers
are attentive to the needs and voices of the
community this can happen, even when Euro-
Canadian researchers have not “read about”
Indigenous paradigms and even if they are not
trying to employ an appropriate methodology.
This suggests that the culture embedded within
a particular place (community/region) is vital and
active and should be recognized and allowed to
drive the methodologies employed in research
projects. This is particularly the case within
Canadian contexts, where the composition of a
community is entirely Indigenous, Euro-Canadian,
or a combination of both. Methodologies should
always reflect the needs and culture of the com-
munity: this may mean following a more tradi-
tional research (on) paradigm and its associated
methodologies where the community expects
(and accepts) that the researcher will conduct
the research independent of them; it may mean
following a more collaborative approach, guided
by the principles of Indigenous paradigms as we
have described (with); or it may even mean us-
ing a combination of both. Finally, it may mean
doing research for a community, based on their
requests and needs. After ten years of working
with communities in our region, we have found
that any of these are possible and preferred by
the community, depending on the context.
Doing research WITH Indigenous communities
We suggest that the ways of engaging with an
Indigenous community will vary from nation to
nation, depending on the amount and type of re-
search that the community has endured and its
geographic remoteness. Certainly Kirstine has in-
dicated that our project experience would have
been very different if there had been a different
level of urbanization of the reserve or a varia-
tion in distance from major centres, largely due
to language differences. McGregor et al. (2010)
speak about the relational aspects of Indigenous
ways of knowing not only as tied to the land
206 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
but also embedded within the language; the rich
meaning embedded in Indigenous language can
be lost if careful collaboration on its translation
is not undertaken. Within a Canadian context, the
more geographically remote and less urbanized
a reserve is, the less likely English will be spo-
ken, and by extension, the greater the translation
challenge, especially if the researchers are not
working with the community in co-constructing
the project and co-analyzing its outcomes. As a
team, we recognize our good fortune in being lo-
cated within an hour’s drive of one another, al-
lowing us ample opportunity to meet in person
when required, for both project-related and per-
sonal reasons. We acknowledge that this allows
for trust, relationship building, and ultimately
friendships to develop at a much quicker pace
than might be possible when the distances be-
tween partners is much greater.
Challenges
Although we feel our project has been positive,
we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge
the various challenges we faced as a team, as a
community member, and as researchers. A very
critical lesson we learned as a team early in
the partnership was the importance of commu-
nication among members, as miscommunication
can quickly lead to misunderstandings and con-
flict. It is not necessary to provide the details
of the situations we experienced to share what
we learned: all partners must clearly commu-
nicate their expectations around funding alloca-
tions, compensation, and time commitments. We
were able to move through the tension by taking
the time to clearly identify and name the con-
flict, search for various solution options, and al-
low each member the time to chose the solution
that fit them and to apologize when necessary.
Kirstine has recognized the multiple chal-
lenges she faced as a community partner, largely
relating to time. The large amount of work
involved in research and in co-publishing and co-
presenting is exacerbated for a community mem-
ber as research is generally not their focus. From
speaking with other researchers, we have learned
that in most cases the Chief and Council will
have paired a person working full-time as the
economic development officer (or in a related
managerial position) with the researchers. This
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
places an enormous strain on the community
partner as it often means working on the project
after regular work hours, leaving family to at-
tend meetings or conferences, and working as
an intermediary within the larger community. Re-
searchers must recognize the demands that the
project places on the community member and
work together to create reasonable timelines that
respect everyone’s position.
It can also be challenging when members of
the team have to leave (our loss of Hoss) or
when there is a change in community leadership.
When leadership changes, time must be made to
involve and “educate” the research team and the
new local actors about the project and to incor-
porate new aspects or ideas if necessary.
Attending and presenting at an academic con-
ference can be challenging as the community
member may not be familiar with or interested
in the academic content of the conference be-
yond the session concerning their joint project.
It becomes the research partners’ responsibility
to explain the “culture” of academic conferences
to adequately prepare the community partner, to
jointly determine how the presentation will be
prepared and given, and to discuss how the
group will attend the conference sessions (at-
tending all sessions together, going to those of
interest, etc.). Communicating about these chal-
lenges and not making assumptions helped us to
attend several conferences and to benefit from
the experience.
Harvey and Rhonda had to deal with a number
of issues at an institutional level. At times it is
frustrating working within the policies of fund-
ing agencies and universities as they are often
inflexible and incongruent with community poli-
cies (such as developing letters of understand-
ing to frame the research, or releasing funding
to pay for gifts or honoraria). Another challenge
can arise with research ethics boards, whose role
is to protect the anonymity and confidentiality
of research participants. This requirement, in our
case, was in direct conflict with our partners’
wish to be identified and given credit for their
information. In both cases, it takes patience,
awareness of new research policies (e.g., the Tri-
Council Policy Statement [CIHR et al. 2010]), and
positive communication both within universities
and within communities to facilitate the evolu-
tion of research with communities.

Ethical research ON, WITH, and FOR
Although the Tri-Council’s revised ethical guide-
line for academic research in Canada is impor-
tant, we have come to the conclusion, through
the reflexive analysis of our partnership, that ba-
sic human decency grounded in respect for one
another, openness about needs and responsibil-
ities, and willingness to reciprocate and build
relationships, is essential to productive and re-
spectful research collaborations. The four R-
words (paraphrased from Louis 2007)—respect,
responsibility, reciprocation, and relationships—
are some of the foundational principles com-
mon between CBPR methods and Indigenous re-
search paradigms, though the two do not stem
from the same worldview. We would argue that
such principles should inform all research inter-
actions with any community, not only those that
are based on CBPR methods, or only those with
Indigenous communities. Research grounded in
these principles will allow for ethically conducted
research on, with, and for a community.
We appreciate that such a statement may be
perceived as inflammatory by those with a strong
stake in doing research on a community or even
as colonial by some communities, though that
is not our intention. Both Harvey and Rhonda
have approached communities (both First Na-
tion and/or Euro-Canadian) with collaborative re-
search projects which presupposed co-designing
the process, co-analysis, and sharing the out-
comes, and have been greeted with “we are not
interested, but we permit you to go ahead if you
want.” In each case, we have undertaken our re-
search project, but have also asked, “Is there
something else that would be of benefit to you
that you would like us to work on?” The com-
munity representatives have responded affirma-
tively and as a result, additional projects were
conducted for the community, while conducting
our original project on the community. At the
end of the project, we still share the results of
the research on the community through reports,
meetings, and open houses.
As our experience illustrates, research based
on a community within this context still requires
asking permission and only proceeding when
granted access (respect), requires time commit-
ments on the part of researchers to develop
relationships with the community (relationship),
sharing results in meaningful ways and maintain-
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 207
ing honesty about the purpose of the research
and how it will be used (responsibility), and giv-
ing the data to the community to use at their
discretion. However, it does not require the full
participation and co-creation of knowledge with
the community. As Kirstine has indicated, work-
ing with can be very labour intensive for the
community and they simply may not have the
resources to support these kinds of intensive
research relationships, especially multiple ones,
given all the other demands on their time. In
contrast, research on the community that has
had community oversight and approval, and that
is based on appropriate principles, could be con-
ducted in ways that are still ethical, but that do
not overly tax the community by requiring their
involvement. Such an approach also requires re-
searchers to ask if they can conduct any research
(within their areas of expertise) that may be of
benefit to the community, thus doing research
for them (reciprocity). We acknowledge that this
approach perhaps moves beyond the parameters
of what is considered CBPR, but we see it as a
contemporary, ethical option that draws on the
principles Indigenous researchers argue for, and
at the same time acknowledges the challenges of
participatory methods for communities.
The Red Rock Indian Band has developed a
consultation strategy that guides industry de-
velopments in their community and on their
traditional lands; no similar strategy exists for
researchers wishing to undertake projects in the
area. As a result of our reflections, we have re-
alized that a research consultation protocol for
the community could protect them from unethi-
cal research. Research protocols are not uncom-
mon, such as those developed by the Inter Tribal
Health Authority (2005), the Assembly of First
Nations (2009), and the ownership, control, ac-
cess, and possession (OCAP) principles (Schnarch
2004). If we were to develop a research consul-
tation protocol for the Red Rock Indian Band, it
would be based on the guiding principles we de-
veloped through our research project and those
identified in our literature review (Fletcher 2003;
Wilson 2008; Caine et al. 2009; McGregor et al.
2010), thus allowing us to create a protocol that
is representative of the particular context of the
region. Our intention is to present this opportu-
nity to the Chief and Council and, if they deem
it necessary and approve the development of
208 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
protocols, we will complete this task for them,
illustrating that CBPR is also about working for
the community.
As Fletcher (2003) indicates, remaining com-
mitted and available to the community after the
project is over is critical. The weight of responsi-
bility shifts to the researcher when research with
the community becomes for the community; if
research with is labour intensive for community
partners, research done for the community can
be labour intensive for the researchers as there
may not be any immediate academic value and
such work can be very time-consuming.
We believe that ideally research should be con-
ducted by Indigenous communities, as Indige-
nous peoples have successfully been conducting
their own research since time immemorial (Wil-
son 2008). Throughout our research, we were
committed to offering opportunities for inter-
ested community members to become involved
in the project to build internal capacity for
tourism development and to undertake research
wherever possible. We are, however, aware of
the enormous demands on people’s time as they
work on economic, political, environmental, so-
cial, and health-related issues while maintaining
constant vigilance to ensure just treatment. It
is the need for vigilance that exacerbates the
competing demands on community members (es-
pecially leaders’) time, as they need to attend
numerous meetings just to ensure that their
community and its needs are being represented.
Although research expertise and capacity does
exist within Indigenous communities, and a great
deal of research is often undertaken by the com-
munity despite the intense pressures they face,
there are situations where they may not have
the time or people to undertake specific research
and thus outside help may be required. Our con-
cept of research for the community is therefore
premised on the idea that the community knows
their research needs and, at times, may seek ex-
ternal expertise. It is imperative that the chosen
external experts follow ethical procedures in ful-
filling their research obligations. Ultimately, it is
our hope that Indigenous communities will be-
come valued as equal members in a society so
that their vigilance to ensure just treatment is
no longer required and they will therefore have
time to conduct their own research (research
by). Until that time, we believe that ethical re-
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
search with and for Indigenous communities is
required.
Conclusion
As we have shown throughout this article, tra-
ditional methods of conducting research on
Indigenous communities have served to perpet-
uate the colonization of Indigenous peoples. We
have listed the various federal government and
Indigenous agencies in Canada which have de-
veloped protocols to guide the ethical conduct
of research regarding Indigenous issues. We have
discussed how CBPR has been promoted as an
ethical approach to conducting research involv-
ing Indigenous communities and how many In-
digenous scholars argue that the inclusion of
Indigenous world views are required to shed the
colonialism embedded within the larger paradigm
from which CBPR has emerged, advocating ac-
tively for the inclusion of Indigenous paradigms.
Our reflexive analysis suggests that researchers
should continue to move away from traditional
methods that perpetuate the conventional ways
of working on Indigenous communities to meth-
ods that involve working with and for them,
based on an ethic that respects and values the
community as a full partner in the co-creation
of the research question and process, and shares
in the acquisition and dissemination of knowl-
edge. Had we followed the research plan initially
devised by Harvey and Rhonda, we might have
made an academic contribution, but the commu-
nity would have received little benefit because it
would not have addressed their current needs re-
garding tourism development. Instead, we moved
from a research plan on the community, to work-
ing with them, ultimately achieving benefit for
both parties.
Our analysis also illustrated to us that any re-
search conducted within a community (Indige-
nous in particular, but other communities as
well), regardless of its purpose and methodol-
ogy, should respect the community by inform-
ing them, seeking their permission, and returning
research results. Such an approach may pro-
vide the ethical space for a contemporary form
of conducting research on a community, but it
requires building a relationship based on the
concepts outlined by Louis (2007). The research

interaction must be based on respect and trust,
where the community knows the researcher and
the purpose and intent of his/her work and they
approve (relational accountability); where the re-
searcher respects the community’s wishes and
undertakes the research project once approval
has been granted (respectful representation) and
offers to do work for the community in recog-
nition of the opportunity to conduct their own
research on (reciprocal appropriation). In doing
research for the community, the researcher is
prioritizing benefits to the community, in addi-
tion to sharing the results of their research on
the community (rights and regulation).
Finally, our analysis helps to illustrate the ben-
efits of bringing Indigenous research paradigms
and CBPR methods together, and why the ethi-
cal principles embedded in them, as defined by
Indigenous scholars—and perhaps more impor-
tantly, Indigenous partners—are so critical.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Chief and Council of the Red
Rock Indian Band for their ongoing support, members of
the RRIB for their participation and contributions, and var-
ious funding agencies for their financial support: the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Parks
Canada, and the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.
References
Absolon, K., and C. Willet. 2005. Putting ourselves forward:
Location in Aboriginal research. In Research as resistance:
Critical Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches, ed.
L. Brown and S. Strega. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars
Press/Women’s Press, 97–126.
Assembly of First Nations. 2009. Ethics in First Nations Re-
search. Ottawa, ON: Assembly of First Nations Environ-
mental Stewardship Unit. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/
rp-research ethics final.pdf.
Cain, K. J., C. M. Davison, and E. J. Stewart. 2009. Preliminary
field-work: Methodological reflections from northern Cana-
dian research. Qualitative Research 9(4): 489–513.
Castleden, H., T. Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht First Nation. 2008.
Modifying photovoice for community-based participatory
Indigenous research. Social Science and Medicine 66(6):
1393–1405.
Castleden, H., V. Sloan Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I
spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian
university researchers’ perspectives on community-based
participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. The
Canadian Geographer 56(2): 160–179.
Castleden, H., V. Sloan Morgan, and A. Neimanis. 2010.
Researchers’ perspectives on collective/community co-
authorship in community-based participatory Indigenous
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
Moving from research ON 209
research. Journal of Empirical Research on Health Research
Ethics 5(4): 23–32.
Chataway, C. 1997. An examination of the constraints on mu-
tual inquiry in a participatory action research project. Jour-
nal of Social Issues 53(4): 747–765.
CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), NSERC (Natu-
ral Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada),
and SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Coun-
cil of Canada). 2010. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical
conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: CIHR.
http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS 2 FINAL
Web.pdf.
Davis, C., and Ellis, C. 2008. Emergent methods in autoethno-
graphic research: Autoethnographic narrative and the mul-
tiethnographic turn. In Handbook of emergent methods, ed.
S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy. New York, NY: Guilford
Press, 283–302.
de Leeuw, S., E. Cameron, and M. L. Greenwood. 2012. Partic-
ipatory and community-based research, Indigenous geogra-
phies, and the spaces of friendship: A critical engagement.
The Canadian Geographer 56(2): 180–194.
Deloria, V. 1991. Commentary: Research, redskins, and real-
ity. The American Indian Quarterly XV: 457–468.
Dupuis, S. 1999. Naked truths: Towards a reflexive methodol-
ogy in leisure research. Leisure Sciences 21: 43–64.
Ellis, C., and A. P. Bochner. 2000. Autoethnography, personal
narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In Handbook of
qualitative research, ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 733–768.
Fletcher, C. 2003. Community-based participatory research
relationships with Aboriginal communities in Canada: An
overview of the context and process. Pimatziwin: A Jour-
nal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health 1(1):
27–62.
Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. Competing paradigms in
qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research,
ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 105–117.
Johnson, J., and B. Murton. 2007. Re/placing native science:
Indigenous voices in contemporary constructions of nature.
Geographical Research 45(2): 121–129.
Henderson, K. A. 1991. Dimensions of choice: A qualitative
approach to recreation, parks, and leisure research. Stage
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Hertz, R., ed. 1997. Reflexivity and voice. London, UK: Sage.
Hollinshead, K., and T. B. Jamal. 2001. Delving into discourse:
Excavating the inbuilt power-logic(s) of tourism. Tourism
Analysis 6(1): 63–73.
Huntington, H. P. 2006. Who are the “authors” when tradi-
tional knowledge is documented? Artic 59(3): iii–iv.
Inter Tribal Health Authority. 2005. Research protocol: Work-
ing together for healthy nations. Nanaimo, BC: ITHA.
http://www.turtleisland.org/healing/itharesearch.pdf.
ITK (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami) and NRI (Nunavut Research In-
stitute). 2007. Negotiating research relationships with Inuit
communities: A guide for researchers, ed. S. Nickels, J.
Shirley, and G. Laidler (now Ljubicic). Ottawa, ON and
Iqaluit, NU: ITK and NRI.
Koster, R. L., and R. H. Lemelin. 2009. Appreciative inquiry in
rural tourism. Tourism Geographies 11(2): 256–269.
Kovach, M. 2005. Emerging from the margins: Indige-
nous methodologies. In Research as resistance: Critical,
210 Rhonda Koster, Kirstine Baccar, and R. Harvey Lemelin
Indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches, ed. L.
Brown and S. Strega. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars
Press/Women’s Press, 19–36. http://www.scribd.com/doc/
27360298/1/Margaret-Kovach1.
———. 2009. Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, con-
versations, and contexts. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Kurelek, C. 1992. Anthropological participatory research
among the Innu of Labrador. Native Studies Review 8: 75–
97.
Lassiter, L. E. 2005. Collaborative ethnography and public an-
thropology. Current Anthropology 46(1): 83–106.
Lather, P. 1986. Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Re-
view 56: 256–277.
Lemelin, R. H., R. L. Koster, I. Woznicka, K. Metansinine,
and H. Pelletier. 2009. Voyages to Kitchi Gami: the Lake
Superior National Marine Conservation Area and regional
tourism opportunities in Canada’s first national marine
conservation area. Tourism in Marine Environments 6(2/3):
101–118.
Lemelin, R. H., E. Wiersma, and E. J. Stewart. 2010. Integrating
researchers and Indigenous communities: Reflections from
northern Canada. In Fieldwork in tourism: Methods, issues
and reflections, ed. C. M. Hall. New York, NY: Routledge,
289–307.
Louis, R. 2007. Can you hear us now? Voices from the
margin: Using Indigenous methodologies in geographic re-
search. Geographical Research 45(2): 130–139.
Louis, R., and Z. Grossman. 2009. Discussion paper on
research and Indigenous peoples. Prepared for the In-
digenous peoples Specialty Group of the Association
of American Geographers, March 2009. http://www.
pacificworlds.com/ipsg/Discussion paper.pdf.
Lykes, M. B. 1997. Activist participatory research among
the Maya of Guatemala: Constructing meanings from sit-
uated knowledge. Journal of Social Issues 53(4): 725–
746.
Lykes, M. B., M. Terre Blanche, and B. Hamber. 2003. Narrat-
ing survival and change in Guatemala and South Africa:
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 195–210
The politics of representation and a liberatory commu-
nity psychology. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy 31: 79–90.
MacBeth, D. 2001. On “Reflexivity” in Qualitative Research:
Two Readings, and a Third. Qualitative Inquiry 7(1): 35–68.
Max, K. 2005. Anti-colonial research: Working as an ally with
Aboriginal peoples. In Critical issues in anti-racist research
methodologies, ed. G. J. Sefa Dei and G. S. Johal. New York,
NY: Peter Lang, 79–94.
McGregor, D., W. Bayha, and D. Simmons. 2010. “Our respon-
sibility to keep the land alive”: Voices of northern Indige-
nous researchers. Pimatziwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and
Indigenous Community Health 8(1): 101–123.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation meth-
ods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rundstrom, R. A., and D. Deur. 1999. Reciprocal appropria-
tion: Toward an ethics of cross-cultural research. In Geog-
raphy and ethics, ed. J. D. Proctor and D. M. Smith. New
York, NY: Routledge, 237–250.
Schnarch, B. 2004. Ownership, control, access, and possession
(OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A criti-
cal analysis of contemporary First Nations research and
some options for First Nations communities. Ottawa, ON:
First Nations Centre, National Aboriginal Health Organiza-
tion. http://www.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/pdf/human/
nonspecific/OCAP%20principles.pdf.
Smith, L. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and In-
digenous peoples. Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press.
St. Denis, V. 1992. Community-based participatory research:
Aspects of the concept relevant for practice. Native Studies
Review 8: 51–74.
Steinhauer, E. 2002. Thoughts on an Indigenous research
methodology. Canadian Journal of Native Education 26:
69–81. Quoted in R. Louis, Can you hear us now? Voices
from the margin: Using Indigenous methodologies in geo-
graphic research. Geographical Research 45(2), 2007: 130–
139, 133.
Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research
methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishers.
Copyright of Canadian Geographer is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.