Considerations for relational research methods for use in Indigenous contexts: implications for sustainable development

ABSTRACT

Research has oftentimes been carried out in Indigenous communities for the sole benefit of the western researcher. As a result, feelings of distrust toward researchers and research institutions have become prevalent among Indigenous peoples. However, this distrust can be resolved through the use of research approaches and methods that reflect Indigenous perspectives, beliefs, and values and that centre the entire research process on the Indigenous community in question and their need for sustainable development. One such Indigenous research approach is rooted in relationality, whereby all living things and the natural world have a shared history and future. In this article, we explore the use of relational methods in research with Indigenous communities to decolonise the research process and capture Indigenous experiences using an inherently Indigenous approach. A systematic review of the extant literature to identify the key characteristics of relational methods used when conducting research with Indigenous peoples was conducted for the period 2012 to 2021. Five key characteristics of relational methods stood out, namely: collaboration, trusting and reciprocal relationships, flexibility, relational data, and reflexivity. These findings are discussed in the context of postcolonial theory and considerations for researching sustainable development in Indigenous communities.

KEYWORDS:

• Decolonisation
• indigenous
• relational methods
• relationality
• sustainable development

Introduction

Indigenous peoples around the world are often subjected to western models of development which undermine respectful relationships (Vásquez-Fernández et al., 2021). However, defining a people as Indigenous is not straightforward, particularly in relation to who makes the definition and for what purpose. In this light, we will not be assigning a rigid, ‘one-size fits all’ definition. Broadly, the understanding of Indigenous peoples can be based on “self- identification as Indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member; historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies; strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources; distinct social, economic or political systems; distinct language, culture and beliefs; forms of non-dominant groups of society, with a resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.” (UN, n.d..)

Historically, the purpose of research carried out in Indigenous communities was for colonial settlers to gain academic recognition and advance their careers while offering no services to their research participants (Burnette & Sanders, 2014; Smith, 1999; Sobeck et al., 2003).

Feelings of distrust toward researchers and research institutions have thus been prevalent among Indigenous populations. However, such suspicions can be carefully resolved if culturally sensitive research is carried out (Burnette et al., 2014). This must be done to avoid trying to objectively understand a community and can be achieved if the researcher builds rapport and trust with the Indigenous community (Bishop, 2005). This framework of respect, inclusivity, and cooperation between two parties is defined under relational methodology. In this article, we explain how understanding relationality in Indigenous communities and using relational processes of research can lead to positive outcomes, helping both the researcher and the community being researched in meeting their goals for sustainable development. While sustainable development can be defined as development that meets the need of the present, without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs (Wced, 1987), it also underscores a relationality between the past (past generation and existed resources), the present (current generation and existing resources) and the future (next generation and enduring resources) in an interlocking framework.

Relationality in Indigenous contexts

In Using Indigenist Research to Shape Our Future, Wilson (2013) states that, ‘As Indigenous people, we “are” our relationships with other people’ (p. 313). Moreover, relationships are understood to nourish life and are central to Indigenous cultures and their practices (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005; Dudgeon & Bray, 2019). In Indigenous worldviews, relationality is based on the principle that everything is interwoven, therefore, the idea that a person or an entity could exist outside the boundaries of this network is deemed unimaginable (Tynan, 2021). As relationality is considered a way of life, its philosophy has heavily influenced the way Indigenous communities work, communicate, and develop. For example, Dudgeon and Bray (2019) discussed how Indigenous relationality has been restored by the Indigenous women’s knowledge systems. According to them, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’s kinship systems were disrupted by colonial invasion, and yet the presence of Indigenous women’s strong ties to country, family, culture, and spirituality repaired those relationships, and became the source of their well-being. Indeed in De-Colonising the Space: Dreaming Back to Country Irene Watson states, ‘Our bodies and the land are connected. Our health and well-being are tied together’ (Watson, 2008, p. 99).

Similarly, we can consider Ubuntu, an African philosophy that places relationships as a premise for selfhood by the expression of the phrase ‘I am because of who we all are’ (Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013). In this way, Ubuntu conceptualises a relational practice that strengthens ties within a community by establishing strong networks that help communities solve the issues affecting them. Hence, for researchers working on sustainable development in Indigenous contexts it becomes necessary to focus and prioritise relationality and build impactful connections with Indigenous people. This will allow coherent and holistic narratives to be constructed which will result in sincere participation and lasting outcomes.

Chilisa et al. (2017) have also noted that African Indigenous ways of knowing promote harmony and shape the lived realities of people through strong foundations of networks, kinship systems, and connections. Building on the Afrikology epistemology, it is believed that social meaning in these communities is derived from the concept of ‘we-ness’ and ‘us-ness’ (Nyasini, 2016). Such a relationship extends beyond geographical barriers and recognises that the sharing of Indigenous knowledge is vital to cross-cultural understanding. Elsewhere in South Asia, relationality has been studied with its links to socio-economic challenges. Used as a lens in rural India, relationality helped understand poverty and question how low-income people could become financially sufficient by engaging with their social networks (Krishna, 2010). Singh (2015) argues that despite caste, class, and gender playing a major role in rural poverty, relational approaches among people existing in such communities focus on collective action and efforts against deprivation. As emphasis is placed on individual and communal agency within Indigenous communities, it is essential that researchers understand the diversity in worldviews in order to effectively engage in development studies.

As researchers, it is our moral and ethical responsibility to avoid outsider perspectives and disengage from any power dynamics which may hinder the outcome benefits for the researched. For instance, Indigenous knowledge systems are oftentimes restricted by mainstream researchers or knowledge creators as inferior (Orjinta & Mbah, 2022). This continuing bias which includes the non-recognition of Indigenous knowledge holders as equal partners in research, has fostered a deep mistrust from Indigenous peoples, which has led to calls to decolonise research processes intended to boost sustainable development (Mbah & Bailey, 2022). To avoid a top-down approach in research processes in Indigenous settings, our methods of research must be relational and align with the values of the communities being researched. Only through such a framework will we be able to ensure that our practices and results cater to the demands and needs of Indigenous people. Researchers must also remain open to worldviews different from their own and guarantee that any practices which assume biases or westernized implications and privileges are discouraged (Francett-Hermes & Pennanen, 2019; Råheim et al., 2016). Knowledge generated within western research paradigms via western methodologies is limited in addressing the needs of Indigenous peoples (Mbah & Bailey, 2022). A decolonised approach to research which is relational will seek to enact epistemic justice by positioning Indigenous voices and perspectives at the centre of the research process, as outcomes will be relatable.

Relational methods of research

Several approaches can be taken to conduct research that is centred on relationality. To begin with, researchers must be willing to establish and engage in a balanced partnership with the community in order to understand the lived experiences of those being researched. This allows an open and curious attitude to flourish that denies space for pre-existing biases (Dahlberg et al., 2008). To interact with more openness, researchers should be in tune with their responsibilities and place among their interviewees. They should practice patience, by allowing participants the latitude to have their opinions heard interruptedly instead of appointing external theories upon the community and their actions (Dahlberg et al., 2008). Apart from relational interviews, researchers can also employ survey methods in Indigenous communities which have frequently been used in relational research to gain answers on different subjects (VanderDrift et al., 2009). While some quantitative research instruments can be noted to restrict participants’ voices to structured questions, a quantitative tool for use with Indigenous peoples must include their full participation in its creation (Walter & Andersen, 2016), as well as piloted within the targeted community, in order to eliminate any ambiguity and bias.

Although Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) asserts that interviews create an empathic and empowering environment which suppresses the possibilities for power imbalances, Josselson (2013) argues the case for a narrative interview as a relational approach to qualitative study. During narrative interviews, researchers would invite their respondents to share accounts of their lived experiences and the interviewer’s values must be that of empathic listening and responsiveness so that a participant’s point of view is deeply felt. These methods would meet the purpose of conducting relational research in Indigenous communities to grasp the interconnectedness of individuals and their real-life experiences (Tietel, 2000).

Additionally, observation and communication are fundamental components in understanding human relationships, and in Indigenous settings, they may prove to be an invaluable way of investigating social meanings. Papatheodorou and Moyles (2009) used observation to study how children’s care and education may be transformed. While this was used in the context of childhood development, they used concepts of collaboration and observation for relationality that placed value on listening and linking knowledge with development possibilities. The same concepts can be applied to Indigenous communities to renew relationships between the practitioner/researcher and the Indigenous participant within a shared frame of reference, whereby no single individual exercises epistemic hegemony, but knowledge creation emerges as an outcome of relationality. Likewise, the concept of ‘yarning’ commonly used by Indigenous Australians to refer to a way of communication, is an instrumental research method focused on conversational techniques (Bessarab, 2012; Walker et al., 2014). The foundation of such a form of communication is built on relationships, whereby researchers are constantly in the process of engaging themselves in the community, establishing links within the data and creating lasting outcomes (Barlo et al., 2021).

Certainly, research methods that are focused on fostering relationships are likely to be more suitable when working with Indigenous communities. For Indigenous communities, this implies that the use of relational processes during research promotes trust, which subsequently encourages a culturally sensitive research practice (Sobeck et al., 2003). With so much of the world changing around us, the shifts in sustainable development practices can be seen at large. As a result of this, research pertaining to sustainable development is rampant in communities across countries, especially in African and South Asian regions. Therefore, the researcher-researched relationship in these Indigenous settings must exclude notions of development influenced by westernized ideas. As researchers, we should understand that Indigenous participants will work on their own development, and so the methods we engage in their communities must be guided by relationality. This is vital in the current climate as western knowledge can gain a lot from Indigenous communities’ relationship with nature, land, and sustainability (Johnson et al., 2016; McGregor et al., 2020). Doing away with pre-existing ideas and biases is necessary for the research to flourish. In this regard, relational methods that include participants in the research process are key to establishing strong and significant outcomes.

While there are related studies that talk of relational frameworks for specific Indigenous contexts, e.g. Fonua (2021); Snow et al. (2016), and Ali et al. (2022), we are proposing an overarching ‘relational model of good practice’ with associated features. In particular, and distinct from other studies, this article sets out to detail the key principles of good practices that underline relational research methods within Indigenous settings for researchers to consider when seeking to work with these communities to foster sustainable development. It can be argued that the need to address this gap is essential, even as research is pivotal in achieving sustainable development in all contexts, including Indigenous communities (Mbah & Bailey, 2022).

Theoretical framework

Postcolonial theory critically evaluates the existence of colonial expression, thought, and knowledge. Postcolonialism attempts to critique the persistence of modern empires and their legacies. Commonly distinguished between its first and second wave, postcolonial theory has expounded on the roles of race and economy in relation to colonial practices (Fanon, 1967). Moreover, the work of Said (1979) has analysed the purpose of the regressive representation of the Orient to serve Western imperialism. More broadly, postcolonial studies aim to reclaim the history and knowledge of communities which were oppressed under imperialism and overcome various forms of domination to which they were subjected (Go, 2013).

Research methodology within Indigenous communities has the risk of adopting western approaches of inquiry which reinforce Eurocentric models, and produce unrelatable research outcomes (Ajaps & Mbah, 2022; Jeng, 2012). Chilisa et al. (2015) emphasise that research evaluation in African societies should be focused on values and realities of their people so that they may reclaim their culture and philosophies. To achieve this, postcolonialism focuses on the process of decolonisation which requires communities to reject dominant western ideas and values (Hamadi, 2014). Through such a framework of evaluation and analysis a relational approach to research methodology can be conceived.

To decolonise domineering western research methods, attention must be paid to community-specific forms of evaluation that approach existing worldviews in a relational capacity. A study conducted by Muwanga-Zake (2009) attempted to do this by engaging in the Afrocentric philosophy of Ubuntu to evaluate an educational program for teachers in South Africa. Muwanga-Zake (2009) adopted indigenisation of evaluation to decolonise earlier objectives of the research, and placed emphasis on the objectives of the participants, centring research methodology on the teachers’ needs and priorities. During this study, Muwanga-Zake (2009) cooperated and collaborated with the participants through the Ubuntu philosophy by sharing a common goal for the community and engaging in shared knowledge, history, meaning, and values. Similarly, postcolonial approaches to relational processes of research should target the interconnectedness and communal values of Indigenous communities and at the same time advance their interests and further their efforts in breaking away from colonial architecture (Carroll, 2008).

Relationality’s focus on ways of knowing and being is what sets apart the research being carried out to understand communities that are built on collective meaning and shared purposes. Colonialism has dismantled the way of life of Indigenous peoples, and so it is now crucial that researchers adopt frameworks that support and benefit their communities. For this reason, postcolonial theory is an important lens through which different groups, such as societies in the global south, can be studied as their lived realities can provide a context for careful introspection into their close social ties. This underscores the social justice imperative in working with and for historically marginalised communities.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify empirical research with Indigenous peoples that used relational research methods. This review consisted of the following steps: identify an answerable question (drawing from the extant literature, what are the key characteristics of relational methods used when conducting research with Indigenous peoples?), determine inclusion and exclusion criteria (see below), formulate the search strategy (including search terms; see below), search pre-selected databases, remove duplicates, and screen the remaining articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria (first the title and abstract, followed by in-depth screening of the articles that remained).

Procedure & search terms

Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched using the following terms to identify relevant articles: ‘Indigenous population*’, ‘Indigenous people*’, ‘Indigenous person*’, ‘Indigenous setting*’, ‘Indigenous culture*’, ‘Indigenous communit*’, ‘Indigenous group*’, ‘Indigenous context*’, ‘relationality’, ‘relational research method*’, ‘relational method*’, and ‘relational*’. Google Scholar searches were used to complement these database searches. These databases were selected as we believe they provide sufficient scope to identify most of the relevant articles related to our research question.

Inclusion criteria

Only articles published between 2012 and 2021 and in English, or had an available translation, were considered for inclusion. We selected this period as we believe it provides sufficient scope to characterise the key features of relational research conducted most recently, and thus with the highest relevancy to future research. Additionally, only empirical research with Indigenous peoples that reported the use of a relational research method were included. Articles were excluded if primary data collection or collaboration with Indigenous peoples was not reported or if the researcher screening the articles deemed that a relational research method had not been used.

Results

Initial searches using the above criteria yielded 440 articles. 147 articles were retained after screening of the title and abstract. 22 articles met our inclusion criteria following an in-depth screening of the full text of the articles (Figure 1). To distinguish the key characteristics of relational research methods in Indigenous contexts, these 22 articles were examined. From these articles, five key features emerged that reflect a relational approach to research (Table 1). These were: collaboration, trusting and reciprocal relationships, flexibility, relational data, and reflexivity.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Table 1. Summary of the five key features that reflect a relational approach to research in Indigenous settings.

Feature	Definition	Example Actions
Collaboration	Researchers work with and alongside Indigenous peoples to build community engagement, respect, and trust.	Involve Indigenous peoples in the research process, from early planning to data collection, analysis and dissemination of findings.
Trusting and reciprocal relationships	Researchers engage Indigenous peoples to establish and retain trust with communities that have historically distrusted research institutions. This helps in supporting a mutually beneficial relationship.	Offer time, efforts, skills and relevant resources to the Indigenous community.
Flexibility	Researchers modify and adjust their research as necessitated by their local populations to ensure that the community has power and agency over the research process.	Use of unstructured interviewing and narrative techniques.
Relational data	Relational data provides a framework to analyse Indigenous peoples’ kinship, networks, and knowledge sharing.	Use of social network questionnaires.
Reflexivity	Researchers examine their own judgements, assumptions, and actions throughout the research process.	Active dialogues with Indigenous communities about the research process.

Collaboration

Several scholars working in Indigenous communities demonstrate the importance of building community engagement, respect, and trust (Balestrery, 2016; Cunningham, 2019; Datta et al., 2015; Datta, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Gordon & Datta, 2021). The studies discussed in this section gathered and identified data through relational methods and achieved cooperation and teamwork in the communities. Researchers engaged in an open and sensitive exchange with their participants and encouraged collaboration. This is evident from the work of Balestrery (2016) who jointly conducted formal interviews with their Alaskan Native Elder participants. By appointing community members as consultants, Balestrery (2016) creates a trusting environment and fosters cooperation. Similarly, Cunningham (2019) uses relational methods to conduct informal interviews with their youth participants from the Anishnaabeg community in North America. This method highlights the success of using collaborative exercises as the participants’ efforts to oversee the structure of the interviews resulted in their voices being central to the research.

With the help of community Elders, Knowledge Holders, youth, and co-researchers, several scholars underline the strengths of relational methods in gathering research insight and determining research goals (Datta et al., 2015; Datta, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Gordon & Datta, 2021). Such relational methods emphasise community-based participation and reinforce the importance of Indigenous knowledge. At its foundation, these methods showcase collaborative engagement through which the study can be framed according to the expectations of the community. Therefore, it is vital that any investigation and examination into Indigenous cultures integrates the local people. Gould et al. (2021) exhibit the use of relational methods in the Indigenous communities of Abegweit and Lennox Island. By engaging research participants to explore and reflect on the topic of the study, Gould et al. (2021) enable for the community to have a sense of ownership over the project. Similarly, Morton et al. (2020) employed PhotoVoice as a research method. Indigenous youth in Saskatoon were asked to take photographs that reflected the relations between humans and nature. These photographs were then used to incite a discussion within the community about the resilience and health of Indigenous youth. By having the youth actively take the photographs and ascribe meanings to them, a sense of ownership over the data and the findings can be established. This decolonises the inherent power dynamics of the research process via their active participation and helps to facilitate collaboration and communication between the community and the researchers.

Relational methods can also be viewed as a benchmark to address the needs and experiences of the local groups. For example, Ward et al. (2020) initiate a framework for health research with Innu communities by holding meetings with Innu and non-Innu researchers. This effort to establish a two-way dialogue aids in meeting the demands of Innu communities. Additionally, Wiebe (2015) affirms the use of relational research methods in understanding Indigenous youth perspectives in Canada. By integrating the beliefs of not only the youth, but also other groups in the community such as Elders, Wiebe (2015) involves and addresses different perspectives in the research. It is clear from such examples that relational methods are fundamental in preserving an honest account of the research and a truthful reflection of values and relationships. For this reason, Datta et al. (2015) employ four co-researcher participants to help their research community document and write about their own personal experiences. Such methods of data collection are built on principles of collaboration, giving due importance to the participants’ values, and are essential to the development of long-lasting results.

Furthermore, the use of relational methods for co-production is also present in the studies reviewed. For example, St John and Akama (2021) collaborate with 16 young adult Indigenous students in Australia to co-produce an educational programme. The importance of collaboration in governing the production of research can also be seen in the work of Hernandez Ibinarriaga and Martin (2021), who explore the effectiveness of co-design and co-development as a research methodology to be used while working with local communities. To facilitate the investigation of co-design as a research tool, the researchers initiated a workshop with young Indigenous women to generate insights into the research methodology, and to explore the ways in which it could be integrated into practice (Hernandez Ibinarriaga & Martin, 2021). The workshop helped researchers and participants co-discover, co-design, and co-develop areas of interests, and at the same time highlighted the benefits for collaborative engagement. Studies such as these validate the use of relational methods and their underlying focus on collaboration to arrive at beneficial results. This principle helps secure researcher-participant shared understanding. Therefore, any research that is directed at Indigenous communities must consider the benefits of collaboration and partnership in creating outcomes that can flourish long after the research has concluded.

Trusting and reciprocal relationships

Developing and maintaining a level of trust with participants in any community can be challenging. However, this is especially true for Indigenous communities as they have faced western models of development in the past, which has given rise to feelings of mistrust and skepticism. To counter this, researchers using relational methods incorporate certain characteristics into their research wherein they offer their valuable time, efforts, and skills to the community. This helps in establishing and retaining trust with the participants and supports a mutually beneficial relationship.

As mentioned in the earlier section, Balestrery (2016) employs relational methods to discuss and consult the expectations of their Alaskan participants. This practice guided the progress of relational trust-building, and participants were able to share valuable insights regarding their community’s knowledge. Chiblow (2020) offers their Indigenous participants in the Great Lakes Region the same resources as Balestrety by adopting a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to understand different perspectives regarding sustainable water governance. In exchange for the time and skills offered by Chiblow, the community exchanged knowledge on Elder interdependence, respect, and relationality.

For some researchers, the process of gaining trust takes considerable time and effort. Often, it spans several months as they dedicate themselves to working in local areas. An example of this is Hernandez Ibinarriaga and Martin (2021), who facilitated a workshop with Indigenous women in Australia that ran for 6 months. The constructive outcomes of co-development from their study are indeed a reflection of the commitment to time and trust-building the researchers invested and engaged in. Similarly, St John and Akama (2021) report a detailed account of the extensive period taken to gain trust and reciprocity with their youth participants from Ntaria School in Australia. The first author implemented relational methods of research and extended her stay in the community from an initial 3-month period to over 4 years. Her relational actions included helping students download songs on their phones, attending local football games, as well as sharing details about her own life and beliefs to facilitate trust. Thoughtfully, she also respected the students’ private lives by returning home when two Ntaria students died by suicide. This was a way to ensure that the participants dealt with and healed from their loss on their own terms. Upon her return, the researcher conducted the project at a slower pace to continue building an environment of trust and safety (St John & Akama, 2021). This study is a representative example of relational methods as the approaches to research were invoked with empathy, commitment, and careful consideration of participants’ well-being that, in turn, helped both the researcher and the community form strong ties with one another.

While the above researchers showed their participants that they were investing time into building a trusting relationship, others have used relational methods such as meetings, focus groups, and ‘relational spaces’ to enable reciprocity (Blanchet-Cohen et al., 2021; Datta & Marion, 2021; Datta, 2019c; Teufel-Shone et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2020). In an Indigenous community in Quebec, Canada, Blanchet-Cohen et al. (2021) initiated a pilot project to provide perinatal care to young Indigenous mothers and their families. A safe and secure space was offered during every meeting where the researchers and the community discussed how they were feeling both professionally and personally. By using relational methods to practice understanding each other, the researchers built trust and confidence that were fundamental to effectively carry out the pilot study. In another study, Datta and Marion (2021) investigate the impacts of energy projects in Cree First Nation communities in Saskatchewan, Canada. Using relational methods as their primary tool, the first author learned 25 traditional stories from Cree First Nation Elders and Knowledge Keepers. This placed the expertise of the Indigenous community at the centre of the research process, from where they had the power to tell their stories in a manner they deemed appropriate. Elsewhere, for the development of health research in Innu communities, a ‘relational space’ was introduced as non-Innu researchers upheld their commitment to engage with Indigenous ways of knowing (Ward et al., 2020). This helped progress the research forward as strong ties of mutual trust enabled space for sharing and reflection.

It is clear from the above-mentioned accounts that relational methods contribute towards valuable goals of the study as they build trust and reciprocity in local communities. This leads to significant improvements of the project and ensures that there are no power imbalances between the researcher and the community being researched. By positioning the participants’ principles, beliefs, and perspectives at the centre of the study, relational methods guarantee an atmosphere of confidence among local communities.

Flexibility

Another feature of relational research methods is flexibility. In the studies examined in this article, researchers using relational methods have considered flexible approaches to data collection and analysis. This is because relationality caters to the requirements and demands of local participants and gives them a sense of power and agency over the research processes. Hence, relational methods offer flexibility as researchers modify and adjust their research as necessitated by their local population.

Cunningham (2019) employs informal semi-structured interviews in their study with the Anishnaabeg youth in the Great Lakes region of North America. Exploring the youth’s lived experiences of the value of youth voices and sustainability in Indigenous languages, Cunningham (2019) adopts a flexible approach to interview scheduling and topics of conversation. This prioritised the voices and needs of the youth in the study and ensured participants’ comfort and confidence. Muller (2018) implements a flexible environment to work with cultural activists and Indigenous Elders in central Vancouver Island to understand the resurgence of traditional food practices. The study collected data through participant observation and a relational interview approach. Through this, the participants were given the space to lead the conversations toward the issues they deemed the most important and were able to maintain control over the knowledge they shared.

Relational methods adopted to explore the effectiveness of critical co-design with young Indigenous women in Australia also highlight flexible qualities (Hernandez Ibinarriaga & Martin, 2021). In the workshop conducted by Hernandez Ibinarriaga and Martin (2021), students had the agency to share their stories through their own chosen method. Some students chose to share in group settings, while others preferred to yarn individually or write letters. Nesdoly et al. (2021) approach their research methodology in the same way, as their collaborators were given a choice to participate in either a one-on-one interview or a sharing circle.

Another interesting example of applying relational methods to flexibly manage the growth of a project can be seen in the study by Gordon and Datta (2021). With the Alaska Native Community of Ninilchik and the Laitu Khyeng Indigenous community of Bangladesh, Gordon and Datta (2021) explore the communities’ meaning of self-determination. They presented the Alaska Native Community participants with three possible futures of Ninilchik in 2038, namely the optimistic future, the pessimistic future, and the most likely future. The participants were then able to exhibit the steps needed to achieve the optimistic future. This approach not only provided the participants agency, but also promoted participant wellbeing, collaboration with the researcher, storytelling, community planning, and practical uses of knowledge.

Relational methods allow considerable space for flexibility in research processes and create an atmosphere of openness and sensitivity. Altering methods to collect data, or catering to the requests and feelings of participants in the community is an essential component of relational practices. It paves the way to reliable results because the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples are considered. Therefore, researchers engaged in relational methods must be willing to change their ideas and practices in order to secure lasting outcomes from the research process.

Relational data

The relationships in Indigenous communities are flourishing with kinship networks and the passing down of generational knowledge. By using relational methods, researchers engage in the transaction of meaningful information, which they use to categorise their findings. For this reason, an essential quality of relational research is relational data, as it provides a framework to analyse Indigenous peoples’ kinship, networks, and knowledge sharing.

Araos et al. (2020) explore the implementation of Indigenous Marine Areas in coastal communities in Southern Chile. By adopting relational methods such as a social networks questionnaire (a survey that asks about an individual’s connections to the people around them and how these people fit within single or multiple networks), the researchers facilitated the collection of relational data. This aided the researchers and participants in discovering the links between different people in the participants’ networks. It also helped to provide important information on the people involved, the existing support systems, and the nature of the relationships. Likewise, Elliott-Groves (2019) set out to investigate the development of an Indigenous biopsychosocial assessment protocol by members of the Cowichan Tribes in Canada. For their research, a 90-minute nature walk was held to ask Indigenous youth to identify people, places, and things that they were in relation with, and to collect or harvest items that represented these relationships (Elliott-Groves, 2019). Moreover, a 90-minute art workshop with these youths and their families was facilitated, where the youth were asked to collaborate with their families and peers to create individual artworks that represented their life in union with multiple human and non-human relations (Elliott-Groves, 2019). This concluded a direct collection of relational data that informed the researcher’s knowledge regarding the development of the biopsychosocial assessment protocol.

Many of the articles discussed have employed relational methods to explore the experiences of Indigenous peoples in various contexts. However, few of them sought to collect relational data. The direct collection of information pertaining to the relationships and connections between Indigenous peoples and the world around them enables a collaborative mapping of the relations that are deemed important and meaningful by Indigenous peoples. Relational data may then form the backdrop against which Indigenous experiences are explored.

Reflexivity

Finally, relational methods of research rely on reflexivity as a way for researchers to examine their own judgements and assumptions. They also help to promote dialogue and learning throughout the research process. From relational methods, a reflexive approach emerges, as can be seen in various studies where trust, confidence, and collaboration were highly regarded (Blanchet-Cohen et al., 2021; Cindy Peltier et al., 2019; St John & Akama, 2021).

Blanchet-Cohen et al. (2021) actively engaged in dialogue with their participants on topics such as cultural safety, which helped in addressing problems as they arose. This was also beneficial because it invigorated an environment for co-creation and collaboration. Cindy Peltier et al. (2019) engage in a relational self-location process prior to engaging with the Nipissing First Nation Indigenous community. Researchers of the study reported how this established a strong foundation for collaboration with the community as it was a reflection of how their worldviews were shaped by their lived experiences of the world. Lastly, in the study conducted by St John and Akama (2021) wherein the first author returned to the community after taking a break, avenues for trust and reflection were opened to strengthen the researcher-participant relationship. The students in the study described this as ‘Anma’ to communicate the idea of ‘giving space, waiting for the right time, being patient, and having time to think’ (St John & Akama, 2021, p. 24). The researcher details how Anma ‘came to reflect a relational participatory process’ (p.24) that was encouraged throughout the co-production and co-design of the workshop.

Reflexivity is essential in relational methods of research as it requires researchers to observe and assess their own biases. It is an important lens through which researchers can ensure accountability, clarity, and trustworthiness during their study. These aspects are necessary to generate and renew relationships with participants and to create a positive impact in the community.

Discussion

It is clear that relational methods of research encourage a culturally sensitive research practice because they foster and improve relationships. We can conclude from the articles analysed that their authors possessed a genuine interest in the lived experiences of the communities they worked with, which in turn enabled spaces for innovation, reflection, and creativity. To achieve reliable results, authors made certain that the research processes accommodated the prospects of the community. This was done by concentrating on principles of collaboration, trust, reciprocity, relational data, and reflexivity as their interconnectedness is fundamental in carrying out satisfactory research in Indigenous settings.

Apart from the studies discussed in the first section of this article, the importance of relational methods of research has also been discussed widely by scholars in the past. Chilisa et al. (2015) accentuate the need to focus on local values and realities during research evaluation in African societies so that people may reclaim their cultures and philosophies. This is also supported by postcolonial theory which distinctly rejects the notion of superiority of western ideas and pushes for processes of decolonisation (Hamadi, 2014). Postcolonial theory critically evaluates the existence of colonial expression, thought and knowledge. It critiques the persistence of modern empires and their legacies and explains the role of race and economy in their relation to colonial practices (Fanon, 1967). Accordingly, it has become a framework which aims to reclaim the history and knowledge of communities that were oppressed under imperialism (Go, 2013).

Relational methods are a clear example of scholars trying to help communities recover and overcome the various forms of domination to which they were historically subjected under. These methods decolonise western research processes by highlighting community-specific forms of evaluation. This article presents the work of authors who engaged in local philosophies and reformed their research methodologies to meet the demands of the participants. They succeeded in their outcomes by partaking in effective dialogue and being sensitive to local values, history, and knowledge. By targeting the interconnectedness and communal values of Indigenous communities, researchers not only advance their own interests but also contribute to the efforts in breaking away from colonial architecture (Carroll, 2008).

Given that colonialism has dismantled the way of life for Indigenous peoples, it is now crucial that researchers adopt methods that support and benefit their communities. Due to this urgency, relational methods are the main tools through which different groups such as Indigenous societies in developing countries can be studied. Only through the careful introspection into their unique lived realities and close social ties will a beneficial and satisfactory project be delivered.

Implications for sustainable development

The advent of climate change and other environmental and social factors has influenced sustainable development practices around the world. As a result of this, development research is prevalent in communities across the globe, especially in African and South Asian regions. The researcher-researched relationship in Indigenous settings must exclude notions of development derived from westernised ideas. As the findings of this article have reinforced, local groups work on their development by taking advantage of their own knowledge and values. Thus, development practitioners have an obligation to employ methods of research based on principles of relationality as it is considered a way of life in Indigenous communities and encapsulate the idea that everything is interwoven. It has influenced the way people work, communicate, and develop within their networks (Tynan, 2021). It is, therefore, crucial that researchers working on sustainable development support the growth of partnerships within targeted communities. This will allow for results to be meaningful for those involved in the process, who are also the target beneficiaries.

A sustainable framework of development focuses on the features of co-development, co-production, co-design, and co-implementation. This is visible in many projects carried out with Indigenous peoples across different studies. Undeniably, all the authors reviewed for this article maintain relational practices of cooperation, teamwork, and co-learning. Such practices benefitted the overall progress of their research and offered suggestions for sustainable development. To highlight these implications, attention must be drawn to the relational philosophies and practices existing within Indigenous communities that researchers can engage and learn from to advance sustainable development.

The literature reveals the centrality of relationships within Indigenous cultures and the uniqueness with which social ties are regarded. If we consider Ubuntu, we begin to understand the depth of community networks (Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013). This philosophy can aid in the strengthening of relationships during development projects by realising that communal issues are solved through partnerships. Moreover, as discussed earlier, Indigenous ways of thinking are rooted in a collective existence and closely tied to kinship systems (Chilisa et al., 2017; Nyasini, 2016). Because sustainable development benefits from the wide dissemination of knowledge, the nature of Indigenous relationships is fundamental to its progress. Therefore, forming and maintaining important partnerships is the key to achieving cooperation and establishing valuable outcomes.

Practitioners must be relational in their research methods and disengage from any power dynamics within their communities. By overcoming biases, sustainable development research and projects can greatly benefit from the inclusion of diverse cultures and philosophies. More so, by adhering to the five key principles identified in this article, a researcher working with Indigenous communities would be following a ‘relational model of good practice’. It is only through the characteristics discussed in this article will development projects safeguard the history, culture, and knowledge of Indigenous peoples. A sustainable framework for development is thus realised by remaining open to different belief systems, encouraging participation, gaining trust, discouraging the dominance of western models, and involving the communities in research processes.

Conclusion

This article highlights and discusses the use of relational methods in Indigenous research. It achieved this by reviewing different studies associated with local and Indigenous peoples. It accentuates that relational methods are a resourceful ingredient in the design, development and implementation of a study. Through collaborative techniques, trust-building exercises, flexibility, the collection of relational data, and reflexivity, this article sustains the importance of relationship-building with research participants.

The review generated implications for sustainable development founded on postcolonialism and the need to decolonise or remove the hegemony of westernised ideas and values from the frontiers of research intended to foster sustainable development. This article calls for the need to involve Indigenous communities and guarantee that the research is conducted using the underlying principles of respect, attention, care, and commitment. By demonstrating such principles and features of relational methods, the article maintains that there are possibilities for the actualisation or realisation of sustainable development.

In addition to the relevance to sustainable development, this article also contributes to the overarching understanding of research methods and power relations in the social sciences/humanities. However, we wish also to note that as Indigenous people groups and customs are unique and not generalisable, there are limits to the applicability of the research approaches outlined in a context of relationality, as place-based specific conditions can play a key role.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of funding for this research from Research England, awarded through NTU Quality Research scheme

Notes on contributors

Marcellus F. Mbah

Marcellus F. Mbah is a Lecturer in Manchester Institute of Education, School of Environment, Education & Development of The University of Manchester. His overarching research interest captures the intersection between higher education, Indigenous knowledge systems and the UN sustainable development goals. He has recently been actively involved in researching the indigenisation of climate change education and contributes on the postgraduate programme in Education for a Sustainable Environment, as well as International Education.

Megan Bailey

Megan Bailey is a PhD Researcher, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. She completed an undergraduate degree in Psychology at the University of Cambridge and a postgraduate degree in Applied Clinical Psychology at the University of Bath. Megan has been involved in a diverse range of research projects during her academic career thus far, including memory and ageing, Indigenous research methods, and the evaluation of a social prescribing initiative, though her primary area of interest is mental health in children and young people.

Ayesha Shingruf

Ayesha Shingruf has an interest in exploring the interplay of climate change, migration, and conflict, and recently completed a postgraduate study in human rights law from SOAS, University of London. Her thesis investigated the potential of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage in providing legal protection to climate refugees in South Asia. She recently completed a climate related project at Nottingham Trent University’s Institute of Education.