Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STEPS FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH AND EVALUATION IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

Native Americans have suffered a long history of abuse from outside researchers conducting 

evaluations in their Native communities. Literature suggests that some evaluations in Native 

communities have betrayed Native members‟ trust because the researchers failed to conduct the 

studies in a collaborative, transparent, and respectful manner. Because of this history, conducting 

evaluations, which are required by many Federal funding sources, can pose many challenges.

“Steps for Conducting Research and Evaluation in Native Communities” explores the lessons 

and challenges of research in Indian Country and identifies the steps that should be taken to 

ensure the evaluation required by Federal funding sources is effective and respectful of tribal 

sovereignty and cultural protocol, thus making the experience beneficial to both the government 

and the tribal community in which the research is conducted. Below are brief highlights of the 

steps that must be taken to successfully conduct research in Native communities:

Get to know the tribal communities and establish relationships early on with elders and 

spiritual leaders who can serve as mentors, guides, and facilitators throughout the 

evaluation. 

Attend Native meetings and ceremonies as a means to develop an appreciation for the 

history and culture of Native Americans. 

Get a clear understanding of the historical trauma experienced by the tribe and explore 

the personal histories of individuals who will be involved in the study.

Demonstrate respect for the community and its indigenous expertise through 

Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) or by hiring members of the community to 

serve as consultants on various aspects of the research, such as program implementation 

and data collection.

Understand that study schedules and deadlines that you have in place may not be in line 

with the Native community‟s priorities, and any study done in Indian Country will be 

conducted on the tribe‟s schedule and can be delayed at any time for tribal ceremonies, 

family gatherings, or tribal rituals.

Appreciate the Native community‟s assets and challenges. Engaging community partners 

and securing support in the evaluation process is greatest when the program is perceived 

as a potential solution to a recognized problem and builds on the community‟s strengths.
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 2

Failure to engage the community in the partnership and integrate traditional practices that 

are congruent with tribal culture, language, and values can set up the evaluation for 

failure.

Being transparent is crucial in all aspects of research in Native communities. Determining 

how study results will be presented to the community and public and what roles 

community members will play in developing and reviewing reports and publications is 

essential to the success of the research.

Respect protocol by going through Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that have the 

authority to approve research and oversee the study activities. While these constraints can 

at first appear to be a threat to objectivity of the study, the evaluator should look at the 

review process as an opportunity for clarification and transparency to address any errors 

or misunderstandings.

Respect the privacy of the community being studied. Avoid comparisons between 

communities because such comparisons can be invidious if they suggest that one 

community is more superior to another.

Employ blended research methods that include “indigenous ways of knowing.” These 

methods should include individual and oral histories and interviews with program 

participants and key informants. This can be accomplished through focus groups and 

talking circles as a means to engage reflective dialogue with program participants. 

Limit survey questions to those that bear directly on evaluation or program outcomes.

Data sources, measures, and collection of information should be fully discussed with 

Native representatives.

Keep the community fully informed as the study progresses by posting fliers or holding 

brief meetings that summarize study progress and accomplishments and recognize and 

validate contributions of community members. 

Study findings should be carefully discussed with and interpreted by community 

members.

Be aware of intellectual and cultural property rights of the information and consult with 

the Native communities in all phases of reporting and in any oral presentations that 

present the study results.

Acknowledge and give credit to the community for the scientific results from the study, 

and consider key community members as co-authors who participate in writing reports 

and publications. 

Assist the community in sustaining the programs that are implemented by seeking out 

and applying for funds or by presenting study data that will support the community‟s 

efforts in securing the continued program support. 

“Steps for Conducting Research and Evaluation in Native Communities” also provides personal 

stories that demonstrate lessons learned and show that, despite the history of trauma surrounding 

research in Native communities, evaluations can be successfully conducted and benefit both the 

researcher and the community. The researchers learned they must show the proper respect for 

protocol, prove themselves trustworthy, and become known throughout the community before a 

study can move forward. While qualitative study is more accepted in Native communities, 

researchers learned that quantitative research, while more challenging, can be successfully 

carried out as well. The key to successful quantitative research is developing a high level of trust 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 3

between the evaluator and community facilitators, showing a clear connection between the data 

collected and direct community benefit, showing commitment to training and learning, and being 

willing to discuss any cultural issues that may arise in the process of the evaluation. Also, these 

researchers learned that governing bodies aren‟t always the most influential groups to contact 

when doing research. In many tribes it is the elders, medicine people, traditional chiefs, and 

chapter houses that must be part of the research design preparation. 

In conclusion, “Steps for Conducting Research and Evaluation in Native Communities” not only 

explores the challenges related to research, it provides the crucial steps that all researchers must 

take in order to conduct effective evaluation in Indian Country. As demonstrated throughout the 

pages, the key to conducting research and evaluation in Native communities lies heavily on the 

attitude of the researchers as they approach the evaluation process and in the relationships they 

establish with the community. As shown in the personal stories and throughout each step, 

evaluators should approach research in Native communities with humility. The relationship 

between evaluators and the community should be considered sacred and demonstrate the trust, 

harmony, sensitivity, reciprocity, respect, mutual participation, and collective benefit that will 

make the journey they take together a successful one.
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 4

Steps for Conducting Research and Evaluation in Native Communities

Introduction 

Research and evaluation studies in Native communities have been characterized by mistrust and 

misrepresentation. Most of these missteps are the result of actions by researchers with little or no 

experience working with Native governments, Native communities, or Native American people. 

Research has been described as “probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world‟s 

vocabulary” [1] and researchers have been called “...mosquitoes [who] suck your blood and 

leave.” [2] In contrast, some program evaluations have been described as positive by both the 

Native entities and researchers involved. 

This paper briefly explores the lessons and challenges of research and evaluation in Native 

communities, as well as the type of evaluations required by Federal funding sources to determine 

program effectiveness. It further identifies steps in conducting research and evaluation in these 

communities and concludes with personal stories of successful evaluation experiences.

Research Requirements

Native communities have received Federal, state, and private funding for decades. While the 

requirements of outcome evaluations have recently become more rigorous, they are not new. For 

example, in the mid-1980s, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA), Office for Substance Abuse Prevention, now known as the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP), awarded a number of grants to Native governments and organizations 

that required that a program evaluation be conducted by independent evaluators according to a 

prescribed methodology. Subsequent CSAP grants and many other funding sources have had 

similar program evaluation requirements. In response, Native entities, which frequently include 

Native colleges, have developed working partnerships with evaluators, who may themselves be 

Native American. 

Problems in Conducting Research in Native Communities
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 5

American Indians and Alaskan Natives recognize the need for program evaluations to reduce the 

very substantial health and behavioral health problems that their communities face. The 

implementation of research and evaluation in Native communities has created concern, however. 

For example: 

In a fairly recent and notorious case, researchers collected blood samples over many 

years from members of the Havasupai tribe in Arizona, ostensibly to investigate the 

genetics of diabetes, as specified by signed informed consents. These blood samples were 

allegedly then used for other purposes, including an investigation of the genetics of 

schizophrenia, during the course of which the blood samples were distributed nationally. 

[2]

In Canada, blood drawn from the Nuu-chah-nulth people for the stated purpose of health 

research was then used to investigate their ancestry. [2]

A health department inadvertently stigmatized a Native community by publishing the 

results of a survey on venereal disease in a local newspaper in a way in which the tribe 

could be identified. [3]

The results of the Barrow Alcohol Study in Alaska were revealed in the context of a press 

conference that was held far from the Native village, and without the presence, much less 

the knowledge or consent, of any community member who might have been able to 

present any context concerning the socioeconomic conditions of the village. Study results 

suggested that nearly all adults in the community were alcoholics. In addition to the 

shame felt by community members, the town‟s Standard and Poor bond rating suffered as 

a result, which in turn decreased the tribe‟s ability to secure funding for much needed 

projects. [4, 5]

Literature clearly suggests that some research and evaluations in Native communities have 

betrayed Native members‟ trust by failing to conduct research in a collaborative and respectful 

manner: exploiting Native members‟ stories to advance research careers; failing to understand 

and thus misrepresent Native culture; identifying and then stereotyping, stigmatizing, and 

otherwise damaging the reputation of Native communities; and giving little or nothing back to 

the Native community to contribute to Native health and well-being. [6, 2, 7, 8] Evaluators have 

been described as rigid, hierarchical, condescending, and disrespectful of Native culture and 

norms. [9] Their research has been described as a manifestation of colonization. [10, 3] Many 

evaluators have focused evaluation outcomes on reducing a Native community‟s deficits and 

problem behaviors, and in so doing have emphasized the community‟s negative characteristics 

instead of recognizing and increasing its strengths. [11, 12, 2] Consequently, many American 

Indians and Alaska Natives distrust research that has been conducted “on” rather than “in” or 

“with” their Native community. [13] 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 6

Steps to Conduct Research and Evaluation in Native Communities

1 – Establish Relationships

Evaluators typically approach, or are perceived as approaching, Native communities as “experts” 

with job titles and degrees earned. From the outset, the relationship between evaluator and 

community may be characterized by inequality rather than a collaboration in which the Native 

community serves as a full partner, with as much of an investment as the evaluator in the 

successful conduct of the research. [9, 12, 8, 7, 3] The evaluation process in Native communities 

requires the development of both personal as well as professional relationships between the 

evaluator and Native community. Building rapport and credibility should start well before the 

development, much less the implementation, of research protocols. [6, 14] If the tribe has invited 

the evaluator as a part of a grant or proposal, the relationship should begin with the program 

director who can direct the evaluator to the right people in the community. Evaluators should 

attend Native meetings, ceremonies, and other social and cultural events to develop relationships 

so that they come to understand the Native community and are understood by it. [13, 7] 

2 – Appreciate History and Culture

The evaluator should develop an appreciation of the tribe‟s history and culture. This should 

include an awareness of any historical trauma experienced by the tribe, as well as the personal 

histories of the individuals who are most likely to be involved in the study. A full understanding 

of any previous research conducted within the context of the community, and its effects on the 

community, is essential. It is also important to understand the history of the relationship between 

the community and the evaluator‟s institution, which may be considered elitist. [15] Establishing 

a relationship with an elder or spiritual leader of the Native community, who can serve as a 

mentor, guide, and facilitator, [13, 16, 14, 7] may be particularly useful as a key informant 

concerning the tribe‟s power structure. An elder may not be someone who is aged, but rather 

someone who has a trusting relationship with tribal people and predominates in keeping the 

culture alive. An elder or spiritual leader can ensure that the evaluator consults with all pertinent 

gatekeepers who could potentially derail the evaluation if not consulted. [4] The elder or spiritual 

leader can also help the evaluator choose community-based partners with whom to collaborate, 

since the Native community may have collaborated in the past with multiple entities with 

sometimes very different perspectives on how research studies should be developed and 

implemented. The community may speak with multiple voices that are sometimes in conflict 

with one another, and researchers who rely on a single member to represent the entire 

community may delude themselves into thinking this effort to ensure participation is sufficient. 

[17] In general, identifying and cultivating relationships with key gatekeepers and decision 

makers early in the process is very helpful, although the achievement of consensus on the 

conduct of the study may remain challenging. [13, 4] It is most important to listen to as many 

voices in the tribal community as possible.
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 7

3 – Demonstrate Respect

The evaluator should be careful to demonstrate tangible respect for the community and its 

indigenous expertise. This respect can take a number of forms, including the development of a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that includes a clear statement of the Native norms and 

values that are to guide the collaboration. In addition, paid consulting agreements can be offered 

to community members to assist in various components of the research to be conducted, such as 

program implementation and data collection. [8] As another manifestation of respect, the 

community can be invited to collaborate with the evaluator in specifying a research agenda and 

developing plans to ensure that study findings can be used to improve the community‟s quality 

of life. [11, 12] In preliminary planning meetings, it is particularly important that the evaluator 

take the time necessary to elicit opinions from Native members. Some of these may be unwilling 

to express an opinion until everyone else has spoken, sometimes by the use of a minute or two of 

mindful silence. Silence should not be interpreted as agreement, just that the words have been 

heard. This approach to process is particularly important if the tribe has a tradition of making 

decisions by consensus and of not moving forward until all participants in a meeting have had 

the opportunity to voice an opinion. [4, 8] 

4 – Proceed in Community Time

The evaluator should understand that study schedules and deadlines may be substantially at 

variance with the community‟s priorities, and that Native and Western time may well diverge. 

Securing approvals for study protocols may be subject to unforeseen delays, as may program 

implementation and research protocols. Participation in Native ceremonies and other events that 

may be scheduled on short notice (such as family gatherings) may take precedence over study 

schedules. [14] Some tribes will stop most tribal business if there is a death in the community in 

order to observe their tribal rituals. Clearly, research and evaluation in Native communities is 

both time-consuming and labor intensive, and require considerable patience if they are to be

implemented effectively. Issues pertaining to the potential for slippage in study schedules should 

thus be discussed in advance with funders. [9, 7, 18]

5 – Embrace a Strengths Perspective 

The process by which the evaluator gets to know the community should include a systematic 

effort to appreciate its assets as well as its challenges. Where possible, the program to be 

evaluated should respond to community needs by capitalizing on recognized assets. The process 

of engaging community partners and securing support for the evaluation will be greatest when 

the program to be implemented is perceived as a potential solution to a recognized problem and 

builds on the community‟s strengths. [9, 18] The evaluator should specify clearly how the study 

and its data would be of direct benefit to the community. This can best be accomplished by 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 8

engaging tribal members who can communicate the benefits of the project and why the evalution 

is necessary.

The evaluator may also serve the community by employing community members, training them

in research skills such as data collection, and developing mentoring programs. These measures 

not only build the capacity of the community to conduct its own research studies, but also 

recognize and value the time and contributions of community members. Similarly, the evaluator 

can also give preference to community-based organizations when various tasks require a 

subcontract, thus contributing to the local economy. In addition, the evaluator may prepare 

educational materials of potential use to the community and provide training and technical 

assistance to respond to a range of needs. Lastly, throughout the research process, the evaluator 

may serve as an advocate for the community and develop an infrastructure that facilitates future 

research opportunities. [13, 9, 16, 11, 19, 12, 2, 14, 8,18]

6 – Be Aware of Community Readiness

The evaluator should be aware that the program to be evaluated may need to undergo a careful 

and potentially time-consuming process of adaptation, in partnership with key community 

members, to ensure it integrates traditional practices and is congruent with the tribe‟s culture, 

language, and values. [8] This may generate challenges for evaluation designs that involve 

multiple intervention communities with distinct cultures, as formal evaluations tend to require 

that the intervention studied should be administered with consistency across sites. Conversely, 

evaluators who fail to implement programs to this process of cultural tailoring risk offending the 

community‟s cultural sensibility and attenuating the program‟s desired outcomes, [6] thus setting 

the evaluation up for failure. In addition, full program adoption and implementation may require 

multiple years, and failure to schedule sufficient start-up time will also result in the evaluation of 

a program that is poorly or incompletely implemented. [6]

7 – Be Transparent

Evaluators should be candid about all of their initial assumptions and expectations concerning 

how the research study will be conducted. Evaluators should spend the time required to ensure an 

understanding among key decision makers of the requirements and constraints of “scientific” 

research and anticipate and discuss issues, needs, and values that have the potential to generate 

conflict with the community. Of particular importance in this regard are the evaluator‟s 

assumptions about the need for objectivity in reporting results, relative to the community‟s 

potential desire to be presented in a positive light. The evaluator should engage community 

members in the development of study questions and the research strategies that will address 

them, even if changes to initial research plans require negotiations with the funder. It is 

important to be clear at this early stage about how study results will be presented to the 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 9

community and to the public, and what roles community members will be invited to play in 

developing and reviewing reports and publications. [13, 9, 14, 7]

8 – Be Respectful of Research Protocol

Many tribes, such as the Navajo and Cherokee Nations [9], have established Institutional Review 

Boards (IRBs) or similar Native bodies that have the authority to approve research protocols and 

then oversee study activities. In the absence of such a group, the evaluator should consider 

establishing an advisory board that comprises elders and tribal leaders or members who represent 

key constituencies in the community. Review boards may require a letter of support from 

responsible authorities in the communities where the study will be administered. Such boards 

may review closely all data collection protocols to ensure that the language of consent forms is 

simple and straightforward, which may create challenges for researchers whose own institution‟s 

IRB may require the inclusion of content that is opaque or simply irrelevant to the community. 

[20] Native review boards may also carefully consider questions concerning sensitive behaviors 

and ensure that extraneous questions are not asked. Advisory boards may commit the evaluator 

to limit the use of study data to the purposes specified, and even specify require that the 

community be given ownership of the data [12, 4], albeit presumably de-identified to protect the 

confidentiality of study participants. The board may also expect a full presentation and 

discussion of how the proposed research may harm as well as benefit the community, including 

the various venues in which findings will be reported. Indeed, the board may require a review of 

all publications that are generated from the study, particularly to ensure that they are presented in 

language that community members will understand and do not present the community negatively 

[13, 9, 12]. It has even been suggested that IRBs should be empowered to deny the evaluator the 

opportunity to publish study results in a scientific journal. [12] Native IRBs may also reserve the 

right to cancel research studies should they come to believe that the evaluator is reneging on 

commitments or failing to keep them sufficiently informed of the study‟s progress and problems 

in a timely manner. [9, 4, 5]

These constraints may constitute a particular challenge, as the evaluator and the funder may 

perceive them as a threat to the objectivity and impartiality of the study. However, the evaluator 

should see the review process as a valuable opportunity for clarification and transparency and to 

address any errors or misunderstandings. 

9 – Respect Privacy

Culturally competent evaluations of Native programs should be focused inward on the particular 

contexts in which they are administered. Not only are Native communities primarily interested in 

their own growth and development, but such comparisons across Native communities can also be 

invidious, if they suggest that one community may be superior to another [7].
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 10

10 – Employ Blended Research Methods

The evaluator should also be sensitive to the need to employ culturally-grounded qualitative 

methods in data collection protocols that include “indigenous ways of knowing,” as valuable 

approaches to scientific enquiry. [2,14,10] These include individual oral histories and interviews 

with program participants and key informants. Some evaluators have utilized focus groups and 

talking circles as means to engage in a reflective dialog with program participants. One 

evaluation has utilized photographs taken by participants as a way to document their 

involvement in program activities. Personal stories of program participants, and their perspective 

on how they and others changed through program participation, can carry great meaning. 

[9,16,11,20] The evaluator needs to also be sensitive to community members who may believe 

they should be paid for the information they provide. [15]

As mentioned earlier, survey questions should be limited to those that bear directly on the 

evaluation of the program outcomes targeted; evaluators should resist the temptation to add 

extraneous questions that may support the development of tangential publications. [9]

Data sources, measures, and collection should be fully discussed with appropriate Native 

representatives. Evaluators of drug prevention programs typically seek to administer measures of 

substance use, while Native members may find such an assessment at best of secondary 

importance, particularly if the program seeks to instill an appreciation of Native culture, morals, 

values, spirituality, and respect for the wisdom of elders. A careful consideration of these issues 

is likely to yield an evaluation that has meaning to the community as well as the evaluator and 

funder. [4] 

Measures that were developed for majority populations and that have not been used in Native 

communities may have very different meanings to Native populations [14], and should be 

subjected to the same scrutiny by indigenous mentors as the programs evaluated, to ensure their 

cultural appropriateness and relevance. Scales developed to assess psychosocial constructs may 

be particularly challenging in this regard. [4] Measures of some research questions may simply 

be infeasible. For example, Native youth may consider it a betrayal to report the beliefs, 

attitudes, and behaviors of peers and family members. [14] Community-wide data sources should 

be strongly considered, as opposed to data collected from individuals exposed to specific 

programs, since the program and its evaluation should be of benefit to the entire community. [11] 

11 – Conduct “Reality” Checks

One of the most frequent complaints leveled at researchers in Native communities is that they 

have failed to adequately communicate their research findings. [7] The evaluator should thus 

keep the community fully informed as the study progresses, by posting fliers or holding brief 

meetings that summarize study progress and accomplishments and that recognize and validate 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 11

the contributions of community members. Some evaluators have taken and distributed pictures, a 

task that may be greatly expedited by the creation of a website. Others have used newsletters, 

radio stations, and local cable access television for this purpose and have encouraged study 

participants to spread news about study progress and findings by word-of-mouth through the 

“moccasin telegraph.” [7, 2] Evaluators should capitalize on meetings and social gatherings to 

make brief presentations that include a summary of study data and how they are being used to 

benefit the community. Evaluators should also solicit ideas about ways in which study data may 

be constructively utilized in the future. Particular sensitivity is required to alleviate concerns 

about how the data may be misused, either to portray the community in a negative manner or to 

reveal private and sometimes sacred Native information. [13, 9, 8]

Study findings should be carefully discussed with, and interpreted by, community members. This 

strategy will increase the degree to which findings are presented in a valid and culturally 

grounded manner and will decrease opportunities that incorrect or incomplete interpretations will 

damage the community. [19, 12,4]

12 – Be Aware of Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights

The evaluator should consult the Native communities in all phases of reporting and in any oral 

presentations that present study results. The evaluator should be sensitive to community‟ rights 

to control the dissemination of their tribe‟s intellectual and cultural property, and the community 

deserves (at the very least) acknowledgement and credit for the scientific knowledge that results 

from the study. [2] The evaluator should consider engaging key community members as coauthors who participate in the writing of reports and publications and not simply thank them in 

the acknowledgement section. This strategy will ensure that the community‟s voice is heard and 

its perspective communicated, thus enhancing its ownership of the publication and responsibility 

for any subsequent positive or adverse effects on the community. As mentioned earlier, this 

strategy also requires the evaluator to relinquish exclusive, or even primary, control over the 

publication, and may induce the evaluator to omit content that does not reflect well on the 

community. The evaluator may also give authorship to community members who have 

contributed to the conceptualization, development, or implementation of the study but who are 

uncomfortable with the written word. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the evaluator to 

entirely forgo the dissemination of research findings. [13, 9, 2, 4]

13 – Plan for Sustainability

Many Native communities have experienced programs that come and go with grant cycles, 

lasting no more than 5 years, of which the first or second may be spent in development. The 

programs thus end at about the time they are fully implemented and community members 

understand how the programs operate and what they are seeking to accomplish. Some 

communities have reported that it is worse for programs to be implemented for only a brief 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 12

period than to have never begun them. Researchers should thus work closely with the community 

in either institutionalizing programs within current community structures or in actively seeking 

out and applying for funds to sustain them. In this regard, it is imperative to collect and present 

study data in a way that will support the community‟s efforts to secure continued program 

support. [13, 9] 

Personal Stories

The following personal stories demonstrate the successful paths of evaluators in working with 

Native communities. The first story is provided by Eva Petoskey. Eva is a member of the Grand 

Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and currently serves on the Inter-Tribal Council 

of Michigan as Lead Evaluator and as an Expert Panel member for the Native American Center 

for Excellence.

“Successful evaluation experiences can include a wide range of approaches. The success of an 

approach will vary depending on the purpose of the evaluation. For process evaluation using 

qualitative approaches, I have experienced great success using a talking circle or Native-oriented 

focus group. If an evaluator wants to provide a meaningful process for engaging community 

members in conceptualize emerging needs or developing and refining prevention strategies; a 

focus group can be a great tool. For the sake of brevity, I will use the term „Native-oriented focus 

group‟ to describe what I am talking about since talking circles can have varied meanings within 

Native communities.

The Native-oriented focus group begins with a simple ceremonial opening, a smudge, or a 

prayer. I usually prepare a list of no more than four open-ended questions depending on the 

purpose of the evaluation. The process is usually conducted in a circle. The facilitator opens the 

process with the smudge/prayer and then each person has the opportunity to speak about the 

subject or question at hand. Prior to beginning an overview of the purpose, the process can be 

presented and consent forms can be signed, if necessary, informing participants about how the 

information discussed will be used by the project and how their privacy will be protected. The 

process works best if there is a team approach with one person facilitating while the other is 

taking notes. We have experienced great success using a tape recorder if people are agreeable 

and if there are resources available for transcription. 

Once the process is completed, the information can be analyzed using qualitative data analysis 

techniques. A brief report can be prepared that includes a summary of the broad categories of 

ideas generated along with direct quotes from participants. I have found this approach to have the 

two-fold benefit of engaging people in a process that involves what I call „learning from the 

inside out‟ and then taking individual ideas and joining them together into a collective thought 

process. Done well, this can be a powerful and useful tool for process evaluation; it also is a 

wonderful way to facilitate ongoing engagement of indigenous people in defining appropriate 

interventions within their communities. Participants find this process empowering and it helps to 

develop group decision-making and problem-solving skills. 

Another successful qualitative approach I have used is to ask community members to tell their 

own success stories. Using a camera, program participants can make photo essays with brief 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 13

written comments or stories. We have been able to collect extraordinarily moving narratives of 

life changing events through the use of this approach. If a project has resources to fully develop 

display boards with photos and real community stories, this can be a powerful evaluation and 

education tool.

Successfully using quantitative approaches to evaluation are always more challenging in Native 

communities. However, I have also experienced great success in this area by engaging people in

the process. If a utilization-focused approach can be emphasized from the beginning, Native 

community leaders, program staff , and participants are more likely to actively and successfully 

engage in overcoming some of the challenges commonly found with quantitative evaluation. 

Many people find quantitative approaches more challenging because they are not

holistic. Qualitative approaches are more palatable in most Native communities because they are 

more heart-centered or at least offer a balance between the heart and the head. Quantitative 

approaches are, by nature, much more left-brain and reductionist oriented. Reducing something 

into its parts is frustrating for many people unless they have experienced how the parts can be 

put back together into something that is useful. I have been involved in several successful largescale quantitative data collection initiatives implemented by reservation communities. The key 

characteristics of these successful efforts include a high level of trust between the evaluators and 

the community facilitators, a clear connection between the data being collected and some direct 

community benefit, a commitment to training and learning, and a willingness to acknowledge 

and openly discuss the cultural dissonance issues that arise in the process.” 

The following second personal story comes from Dr. Susan Carter who provides us with an 

anecdote from Drs. Gladys and Arie Pilz. Dr. Carter is an educator and program evaluator for 

agencies and tribal communities in New Mexico and other states. 

“ During our first meeting in 1990 with a Native American Superintendent in a Native American 

school district, we requested permission to administer a substance abuse survey to students. The 

Superintendent‟s first response was, „Absolutely not...you will NEVER get into our schools to 

administer this survey!‟ This was followed by a lecture about how Native people have been 

sabotaged and mistreated by Western scientists (we certainly could not argue with that). As the 

program progressed and got better and better „press‟ in the community, we were invited to a 

School Board meeting where we were given blanket permission to conduct all evaluation 

activities. To us, this is a wonderful illustration of how the assumptions and timeline for nonNative/mainstream evaluation paradigms do not fit with Native assumptions. One has to prove 

oneself trustworthy and become known throughout the community. 

We have also learned that even researchers with experience working in Native communities 

often find it convenient to oversimplify the decision-making process within tribes. A careful 

researcher should understand that the formal Native governing bodies are not always the 

most influential groups. In many tribes, elders, medicine people, traditional chiefs, and chapter 

houses must be part of research design preparation. Researchers need to understand what is and 

is not appropriate, the community‟s history with „outsiders,‟ and make plans for stakeholder 

feedback over the life of the research. This is both a matter of respect and research validity."
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 14

Conclusion

This paper explores issues and challenges related to what researchers and evaluators should and 

should not do in Native communities. The great majority of the accommodations and 

adjustments that evaluators are invited to make will mitigate the likelihood that the researcher 

will be seen as exploiting, demeaning, or stereotyping the study‟s community. The quality of the 

evaluation is likely to be greatly enhanced if the community participates in the development of 

the study‟s protocols, is kept informed of its progress, and participates in the interpretation of its 

results. 

However, participatory research as described in this paper is not without costs to the evaluator‟s 

time and resources. Participatory research runs the risk that disagreements with the community 

can lead to the disruption of study protocols. [12] Advisory boards may become mired in 

conflict, and may be unable to address or resolve it in a satisfactory manner [22], although the 

decision-making process can be expedited if the board operates by majority vote. [6] The use of 

data collectors who are based in the study community may also generate a perceived risk that 

commitments to confidentiality may be compromised [8], which constitutes a major concern to 

Native participants in research studies. [15] Some reseachers have instead utilized Native data 

collectors from outside the community. [14] The capacity of Native partners to serve as coresearchers may be limited. [22] The deliberations of Native institutional review boards may be 

lengthy and iterative, and result in substantial alterations to study protocols. [6]

Further, some of the steps identified in this paper may appear to threaten the study‟s objectivity 

and the conclusions it yields. Funding agencies may be reluctant to provide grants to evaluators 

who state in proposals that they will share control with Native members and thus cannot 

guarantee that the activities they specify in their proposals will unfold as promised. Further, 

emphasis on qualitative methods and particularly on telling the stories of participants‟ encounters 

with the program studied, and the effects it has had on them, may be at odds with current 

standards of scientific evidence. [11] The sources we have consulted suggest that evaluators 

should approach program evaluation as a non-linear, iterative process that embraces interactivity 

and collaboration and seeks ongoing program improvement. Researchers are instructed to greatly 

reduce the professional detachment that separates them from the community in which the 

program is implemented and evaluated. Furthermore, the advice presented here encourages 

flexibility and evolution in both the program under study and the methods used to study it. 

Community participation in evaluative research is even seen as a desirable end in itself, as a 

means of promoting community empowerment, addressing historical trauma, and promoting 

social justice and transformation. [19,23,12,2,18,24]

Must researchers entering Native communities abandon the methodological techniques and 

strategies that remain the gold standard in the field of evaluation? If they do, how will their 

studies satisfy the criteria that continue to be specified by various national registries of effective 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 15

prevention programs? Are we to the point of suggesting that there be two sets of standards for 

program evaluations, one that applies to Native communities and the other to studies conducted 

elsewhere? If so, who will develop standards for evaluations conducted in Native communities 

that will successfully discriminate between methodologically rigorous and superficial 

evaluations? Whose task will it be to ensure that these standards are accepted by national 

registries and funders? If program evaluations conducted in Native communities are designed to 

be formative and participatory, if their primary purpose is to benefit the unique needs of the 

community in which the program is set, and if the evaluator shares authority to control the 

presentation and dissemination of study findings, will the utility of the study be limited to the 

community in which it is conducted? 

Engaging in community-based participatory research does not mean leaving one‟s own 

scientific standards and knowledge base at the door but rather sharing one‟s own „unique 

gifts,‟ including one‟s skills as a research methodologist, while accepting the gifts of 

others through a genuinely reciprocal learning process. (pages 692-693) [25]

In the final analysis, what may be most important is the attitude of evaluators as they approach 

the Native communities that will serve as the context for their research. That attitude should not 

only be based on cultural humility, but should also approach the relationship with the community 

as a “spiritual covenant,” characterized by the core human values of trust, harmony, sensitivity, 

reciprocity, respect, mutual participation, and collective benefit. [8,5] Many researchers have 

attended meetings in Native communities that have involved prayers and ceremonies to mark 

their beginning and end that have been offered by spiritual leaders. Such ceremonies can serve as 

periodic reminders of the sacred nature of the covenant between the evaluator and the 

community and of the journey they take together. [26] 
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 16

References

1. Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.

New York: Zed Books Ltd.

2. Cochran, P., Marshall, C., Garcia-Downing, C., Kendall, E., Cook, D., McCubbin 

L., et al. (2007). Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory 

research and community. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 22-27.

3. Christopher, S. (2005). Recommendations for conducting successful research with 

Native Americans. Journal of Cancer Education, 20, S47-S51.

4. Beauvais, F., & Trimble, J. (1992). The role of the research in evaluating 

American Indian alcohol and other drug abuse prevention programs. In M. 

Orlandi (Ed.), Cultural competence of revaluators. Washington, D.C.: National 

Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information.

5. Mason, S., Gasrroutte, E., Goins, T., & Henderson, P. (2004). Access, relevance, 

and control in the research process: Lessons from Native communities. Journal of 

Aging and Health, 16, 58S-77S.

6. Gittelsohn, J., Davis, S., Steckler, A., Ethelbah, B., Clay, T., Metcalf, L., et al. 

(2003). Pathways Prevention of Obesity in American Indian Schoolchildren. 

Preventive Medicine, 37, S107-S112.

7. Richmond, L., Peterson, D., & Betts, S., (2008). The evolution of an evaluation: 

A case study using the Native Participatory Research Model. Health Promotion 

Practice, 9, 368-377.

8. Salois, E., Holkup, P., Tripp-Reimer, T., & Weinert, C. (2006). Western Journal 

of Nursing Research, 28, 505-524.

9. Brugge, D., & Missaghian, M. (2006) Protecting the Navajo People through 

Native regulation of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 491-507.

10. Bartlett, J., Iwasaki, Y., Gottlieb, B., Hall, D., & Mannell, R. (2007). Framework 

for Aboriginal-guided decolonizing research involving Metis and First Nations 

persons with diabetes. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 2371-2382.

11. Chouinard, J., & Cousins, J. (2007). Culturally competent evaluation for 

Aboriginal communities: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of 

MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4, 40-57.
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 17

12. Caldwell, J., Davis, J., DuBois, B., Echo-Hawk, H., Erickson, J., Goins, T., et al. 

(2005). Culturally competent research with American Indians and Alaska Natives: 

Findings and recommendations of the First Symposium of the work group on 

American Indian research and program evaluation methodology. American Indian 

and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 12, 1-21.

13. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A., & Young, S. (2008) Building and 

maintain trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American 

Journal of Public Health, 98, 1398-1406.

14. Letiecq, B., & Bailey, S., (2004). Evaluating from the outside: Conducting crosscultural evaluation research on an American Indian reservation. Evaluation 

Review, 28, 342-357.

15. Buchwald, D., Mendoza-Jenkins, V., Croy, C., McGough, H., Bezdek, M., & 

Spicer, P. (2006). Attitudes of urban American Indians and Alaska Natives 

regarding participation in research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 

648-651.

16. Walters, K., & Simoni, J. (2009). Decolonizing strategies for mentoring American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in HIV and mental health research. American Journal 

of Public Health, 99, S71-S76.

17. Wallerstein, N. (1999). Power between evaluator and community: Research 

relationships within New Mexico‟s healthier communities. Social Science and 

Medicine, 49, 39-53.

18. Harala, K., Smith, C., Hassel, C., & Gailfus, P. (2005). New moccasins: 

Articulating research approaches through interviews with faculty and staff at 

Native and non-Native academic institutions. Journal of Nutritional Education 

Behavior, 37, 67-76.

19. Potvin, L., Cargo, M., McComber, A., Delormier, T., & Macaulay, A. (2003). 

Implementing participatory intervention and research in communities: Lessons 

from the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention project in Canada. Social 

Science and Medicine, 56, 1295-1305.

20. Unger, J., & Thomas, N. (2008). Translation of health programs for American 

Indians in the United States. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 31, 124-144.

21. Weaver, H. (1997). The challenges of research in Native American communities: 

Incorporating principles of cultural competence. Journal of Social Service 

Research, 23, 1-15.
Native American Center for Excellence http://nace.samhsa.gov Page 18

22. Dickson, G., & Green, K. (2001). Participatory action research: Lessons learned 

with aboriginal grandmothers. Health Care for Women International, 22, 471-

482.

23. Van Stelle, K., Allen, G., & Moberg, D. (1998). Alcohol and drug prevention 

among American Indian families: The Family Circles Program. Drugs and 

Society, 12, 53-60.

24. Chino, M., & DeBruyn, L. (2006). Building true capacity: Indigenous models for 

indigenous communities. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 596-599.

25. Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in 

community-based participatory research. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 

684-697.

26. Ker, S. (2006). First person, first peoples: A journey through boundaries. 

American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 360-369.