Creating University and Tribal Community Collaborations

Creating University and Tribal Community Collaborations (148 kb PDF)

By Anne Tellett and Priscilla Day

Introduction

There has been a long history of distrust by Native people towards researchers, primarily non–Natives from academic institutions, who have benefited from research conducted with tribal people but have not given back to the community.

Historically and continuing to present day, tribal nations have been exploited by academics who ignored protocols, documented secret traditions without tribal permission, distorted facts, misrepresented the community, and failed to give back in meaningful ways (Misesuah, 1998). As a result of exploitive relationships, many Native people mistrust and are suspicious of outside researchers. (Letiecq & Bailey, 2004, p.344)

These experiences have had a profound impact on tribal communities’ willingness to work with academic institutions today. “Criticisms of research, particularly research conducted by outside academic institutions, include that it provides little benefit to the communities involved, often resulting in misinterpretation of knowledge and information shared” (Harala, Smith, Hassel & Gailfus, 2005, p.67). Consequently, it is imperative that those interested in working with tribes understand this history and take active steps to avoid replicating these events.

In recent years, the methods used by researchers in tribal communities have been examined more critically. Increasingly tribal governments have established their own review process to screen researchers who are interested in completing studies with Native people (Lomawaima, 2000). “Many American Indian communities and tribes have now developed policies and procedures for guiding research conducted with their own members…Self–determination also extends to Native sovereignty in approving research conducted within tribal units” (Sobeck, Chapleski & Fischer, 2003, p.73).

There has also been an increased emphasis on appropriate ways to conduct research in tribal settings. In discussing the process of conducting research in American Indian communities, Manson, Garroutte, Goins and Henderson (2004) note that the values of “trust, respect, self–determination, mutuality of interests, perspective taking, full participation, reciprocity, collective benefit, and long–term commitment” (p.73S) are required for successful collaboration.

Most authors describe the need to form relationships with key individuals and work with the community in designing and carrying out community projects and research. “A thin line exists between working ‘with’ and working ‘for’ American Indians … [and tribes] are sensitive to initiatives developed without their participation or input” (Poupart, Martinez, Red Horse, & Scharnberg, 2000, p.45). “Community participation is highly valued by Indian people as the most effective means for conducting research within its communities. This means that tribal members…must be involved in the research project from beginning to end” (Sobeck, Chapleski & Fischer, 2003, p. 74).

While all efforts to build relationships prior to beginning research work in tribal communities are important, the depth and quality of these interactions often varies widely. “Trust building is a process and cannot be established immediately. Success depends on the quality of interactions that are established in the community….It is important to build relationships on a personal basis” (Poupart, Martinez, Red Horse, & Scharnberg, 2000, p.46). Often, however, these efforts may not involve reciprocal, long–term relationships.

This article will describe a relational model for long–term work with tribal communities in Northern Minnesota. The model’s success is rooted in a long–term, collaborative relationship between the American Indian Projects (AIP) at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) and area tribal communities. Two projects will be described to highlight how this structure has created a successful relationship that produces collective benefits to all concerned. In describing these projects, we will also briefly discuss the role of Native and non–Native researchers and the issues that can arise based on differences in worldviews.

In discussing the ability of researchers from the majority culture to conduct valid research and evaluation efforts with minority populations “there appears to be a general consensus that the researcher’s race…matters and therefore should be considered when planning, carrying out, and disseminating evaluation research (Ward Hood and Cassaro, 2002)” (Letiecq & Bailey, 2004, p. 348).

Regarding evaluation research with Native populations, some assert that non–Native, White researchers should step aside in favor of Native researchers (Becerra 1997b; Swisher 1996). Others posit that the most productive research results from collaboration of Native and non–Native researchers (de Anda 1997; Mihesuah 1998). Although in theory one might argue the primacy of Native researchers conducting evaluative research with Native populations, in reality such decisions are determined by the availability and location of trained evaluators. (Letiecq & Bailey, 2004, p.348–9)

American Indian Projects

The University of Minnesota Duluth’s American Indian Projects (AIP) provides an example of how academic institutions can create structures that provide long–term support for their relationships with tribal communities. In an effort to support American Indian initiatives, AIP was developed and housed in the UMD Social Work Program (formerly known as the School of Social Development) in1971. Throughout the years, AIP changed with funding availability and was temporarily discontinued in the early 1990’s. The Department of Social Work re–established AIP in 1999 to address the growing need for outreach to American Indian communities and to develop tribal child welfare initiatives in collaboration with the Center for Regional and Tribal Child Welfare Studies.

AIP’s primary mission is to develop and oversee initiatives related to American Indians in the Masters of Social Work Program including student support, advocacy, linkages to the American Indian community, curriculum development, and other projects that support the recruitment and retention of American Indian students. An American Indian community advisory committee assists AIP faculty and staff in developing the training initiatives and other activities that are beneficial for tribes in the region. Members include Elders and American Indian practitioners from Anishinaabeg communities in northern Minnesota. Most of the members, including AIP faculty and staff, have worked together for many years and have established long–term, trusting relationships.

This article will provide two case examples of projects undertaken by AIP in partnership with tribal groups in Northern Minnesota over the past ten years. One of the projects, Anishinaabe Culture and Language Institutes (ACLI), was designed for American Indian MSW students at UMD. This case study exemplifies the type of project that should be carried out by Native faculty or researchers. The project summary of the ACLI in this article has been written by one of the Native faculty members who participated in the project’s design and implementation. The other example presented in the article was a research project conducted by two Native UMD employees (one staff, one faculty) and a non–Native faculty. The study asked the question, “What does it take to raise a healthy Anishinaabe child?” The summary of the research was written for this article by the non–Native researcher.

Development of Anishinaabe Cultural and Language Institutes

Getting Started

When AIP was re–vitalized in 1999, we wanted to work more closely with tribal communities. The first step was to hold a series of community focus groups to ask what the university could do to work more effectively with tribal communities. We wanted to acknowledge the role that education and educators played in the colonization and victimization of tribal people and communities during the boarding school era. As is often true when people are given an opportunity to be listened to, these focus groups became much more powerful and informative than expected. Elders began to share their boarding school stories, their pain and trauma. They spoke about how policies of assimilation and boarding schools affected not only them, but subsequent generations. One elder wept as she made the connection between some of her behaviors and the impact on her children. Another cried as he recounted being teased for “speaking his language” by other Indian children at a boarding school. Another elder spoke about having lost his language and his fear that when he passed on, he would not be able to see his loved ones who died earlier because he could not say his Indian name, clan, and where he was from, which he had been told was necessary to cross over. Our Elders grief, long carried, impacted those of us who were there deeply. Those of us able to bear witness to the pain of our Elders, felt compelled to do something positive in response. In a very real way these “confessions”, often never spoken of before, provided us with direction for the development of Culture and Language Institutes. We are forever grateful to their honesty and willingness to share in order to make things better for others.

At the same time, while teaching American Indian students in the MSW program, it became clear that some of them were deeply affected by the historic trauma they and their families had experienced. This often became apparent in the American Indian content courses where the history of oppression and resulting impacts were discussed. Research conducted by American Indian researchers has found that, “American Indian responses to historic trauma are of collective genre so that observers may encounter community wide depression and self–destructive behavior, substance abuse, identification with the ancestral pain, fixation to trauma, somatic symptoms, anxiety, guilt, and chronic bereavement” (Brave Heart, M., 1999, p. 111). Sometimes these deeply held feelings created not only discomfort for the American Indian students, but conflict with their non–Native colleagues. Based on the discussions with our Elders and in an effort to support our Native students, Anishinaabe Culture and Language Institutes (ACLI) were developed. Throughout the project the AIP Advisory Committee was involved in advising and planning for the ACLIs, with a number of the Elders sitting on the Committee, as well as actively participating in the Culture and Language Institutes.

Why language?

The Ojibwe language embodies the culture, worldview, and traditions of its speakers. It interprets the perceptions of knowledge, history, culture, tradition, and worldview in relation to the natural world. The language protects the shared background, experience and understanding of its speakers. The current decline in numbers of speakers has affected cultural identity and understanding. This makes it difficult to pass on important ceremonies that are intricately connected to the language. The culture and language losses faced by American Indians today due to the policies of assimilation are astonishing. According to a study done by Ojibwe Makena (1993), there are fewer than 500 fluent Ojibwe language speakers in the three state areas of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Through all the changes and the losses, Indian people have remained resilient. Our Elders and the oral traditions are the key to healing our communities. “The capacity of American Indians to endure against powerful forces of assimilation is based on survival of their culture, and oral tradition is at the heart of Indian culture (p. 34). Elders are “libraries” of Indian knowledge, history, and tradition…. their wisdom is a source of strength in Indian communities” (Poupart, Martinez, Red Horse, & Scharnberg, 2000, p.33).

AIP recognized the importance of the Elders in educating and enhancing the cultural knowledge of American Indian students and tribal practitioners. The ACLI’s recognized that many contemporary social work methods as taught in most social work programs, have not proven to be helpful to American Indian families and communities. In fact, most interventions used by the non–Indian organizations do not fully appreciate or take into consideration the importance of culture and natural helping and healing networks when working with Anishinaabe families and communities.

Anishinaabe Culture and Language Institutes

The goal of the Anishinaabe Culture & Language Institute (ACLI) was to enhance the traditional knowledge of American Indian students and American Indian human service practitioners serving Indian families. This was accomplished through a series of developmental seminars that were held seasonally. Participants were asked to attend all four sessions since it was a developmental process with each session building upon the previous session. Trainers were Anishinaabeg Elders, a university Ojibwe language Instructor, Anishinaabe social work professors, and traditional people from Anishinaabeg communities. Each session centered on a specific theme for the season.

Our Elders shared the significance of traditional teachings in the helping process and the role those teachings play in work with Indian families today. The Elders explained that Indian family preservation concepts and theories are not new to the Anishinaabeg. These concepts, theories, and approaches have been available and utilized to assist our families for many generations and are still used in communities today by those who have been able to retain them. The traditional teachings help the Anishinaabeg peoples in all aspects of our lives. It is our responsibility to learn these teachings and incorporate them into our practice.

A group of Anishinaabe Elders shared with us their thoughts about the significance of the teachings in working with Anishinaabe families and communities.
Their thoughts are provided below.

Geget ogii–ishkwada’oonaan odanishinaabeman a’aw manindoo apii gii–miinaad keyaa ge–ni–zhi–bimaadizinid.

We need to recognize the Anishinaabe people have a rich set of teachings given to them by the Manidoog, powers greater than we are.

Mii iw ge–ni–wiidookaagod aw Anishinaabe,da–ni–baazhidaakonigod, ini–gagwaadagitood.

These teachings can help our Anishinaabe people as individuals, families, and communities to get
through those hurdles that we may face in life.

Geget a’aw weyaabishkiiwed ogii–wayezhimigoon a’aw Anishinaabe. Gii–wiindamaagod, da–aanawendang gaa–izhi–miingod iniw manidoon da–ni–zhi–bimaadizid.

As Anishinaabe people we have been deceived and deprived in being told to abandon our language,
teachings, and way of life.

Mii iw noongom wenji–migwanaadizid Anishinaabe miinawaa anooj wenji–izhiwebak ini–oodetood
Anishinaabe.

A lot of dysfunctional behaviors happening in our Anishinaabe families and communities are a direct
result of the loss due to this deception.

Mii iw eta ge–ni–naadamaagod Anishinaabe bi–azhegiiwed. Da–ni–aangwaamitood gaa–izhi–miinigoowizid.

Healing will happen when these Anishinaabe teachings are returned to the forefront in the lives
of the Anishinaabe people (Amik, Gagebiikwe, Obisan, personal communication, 2002).

These Elders felt that some of these teachings are appropriate to be done in collaboration with a university. They felt, however, that many traditional teachings could only be learned through immersion into traditional communities and culture. They stressed that learning is lifelong. For some Native students, the university can provide an introduction to these teachings, while for others it simply validates what they already know. For non–Native students, it can be an opportunity to learn to work more effectively across cultures by recognizing culture as the foundation for working with Native families and communities.

One important aspect of ACLI was to build community capacity by developing a network of American Indian social workers that were committed to using traditional teachings as a part of their social work practice. This built upon the recognition of the importance of bringing students and practitioners together with Elders to learn how to integrate traditional Anishinaabe helping practices in their work with families. At one time, Elders were integrated into daily living, but this is not always the situation today, especially with the high rates of out of home placement of Native children and the legacy of boarding schools on our Elders.

The idea of ACLI was to create network of American Indian human service professionals to support one another in the challenging work of family preservation and community development utilizing traditional Anishinaabe approaches. During ACLI practitioners had an opportunity to share best practices with one another, creatively problem solve common practice issues, and learn to utilize American Indian cultural strengths in providing services in our communities. Participants were encouraged to identify, within their own communities, Elders, spiritual advisors, and natural helpers that they could call upon to support the individuals and families they serve.

The ACLI lasted for three years and served over 70 American Indian students and community practitioners. Positive feedback from participants reflected the value of having culturally focused training that enhanced their cultural knowledge and at the same time encouraged both personal and professional reflection and growth. Funding for the project could not be sustained, but many of the lessons from the ACLI have been integrated into other courses. This next summer, a week–long Institute in American Indian Child Welfare will take place on the campus of the Leech Lake Tribal College. In many ways, the Institute will replicate the goals of the ACLI.

Implications for Practice/Lessons Learned

The content of the ACLI was designed by and for Anishinaabe people in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin. However, the general content and format is adaptable to other tribal groups employing the expertise of Elders and teachings from your region. Red Horse, et al. (2000) recommends the need for further development and/or documentation of traditional helping practices in American Indian communities.

The desired outcome of this training project was to directly influence American Indian social worker’s practice by assisting them in integrating traditional Anishinaabe best practices. This process validated culturally based practice that is focused on cultural values, kinship systems, and American Indian teachings to support the healing for families and tribal communities. The following statements by Elders and traditional Anishinaabe people reflects how these Institutes impact practice and acknowledges the importance of cultural practice. The ACLI:

• Helps healing to occur within the Indian community at all levels: families, extended families, communities and the practitioners providing services.
• Increases American Indian social worker’s understanding of historical trauma factors and how they impact the families and communities they serve.
• Enhances the social worker’s ability to understand the culture of the community in order to work more effectively with Indian families and their communities.
• Helps social workers understand the value of traditional services and the cultural network that already exists in many Indian communities.
• Shares the American Indian worldview and recognizes that Elders are our link to the teachings that are critical in healing our communities.
• Builds a powerful network of American Indian people that can support each other in providing traditional Anishinaabe social work practice.

The ACLI provided a forum to share the culture in its pure sense and keep the Ojibwe language active in social work practice. Social workers came to understand that there are key people within each Indian community that can help them in providing services to that community. These individuals can assist social workers in understanding the community, learning the best approaches for the helping process, and can be the bridge between the community and the worker. Social workers need to develop skills to help them integrate cultural approaches into their practice. Programs and services at the tribal level need to be designed with all aspects of the American Indian experience in mind–cultural, political, and spiritual. We all have a role to play in helping others. One of our Elders put it this way,

Our Anishinaabe teachings tell us that each and every one of us have been put on this Earth by the Creator for a reason. There is something that we are to accomplish. It is up to each and every one of us to find our purpose–what is it that the Manidoog (spirits) wants me to accomplish? I am positive that our purpose for existence centers around helping each other (Obisan, 2001).

The ACLI is a model that may be replicated in other tribal communities. This is what others may learn from our experience:

• guidance from Elders is essential
• traditional teachings provide the basis for best practice
• curriculum documentation of the culture needs to include oral teachings
• it is a developmental process that will evolve with time
• it needs to utilize multiple learning methodologies
• must be community based
• over time, it will build community capacity
• uses/develops tribal law and custom based on community standards
• uses/develops tribal practice models reflective of tribal culture and values
• affirms internal tribal sovereignty through use of traditional healing methods
• provides healing of trauma across generations
• builds a strong network between American Indian human service practitioners and traditional healers
• provides a model where universities serve as a conduit of information bringing together students and traditional communities

The most important step in developing ACLIs and/or culturally based training projects was the involvement of Elders in the program development and implementation. This is an example of a project where advisement came from the community (some of whom served as committee members) and where it was not appropriate to have non–Native researchers or participants involved; because of the nature of the information being shared and the need for community healing, it was important to not also have to be concerned about how the non–Native person might feel or interpret the situation.

Raising Healthy Anishinaabeg children

In 2003, discussions began with the Search Institute, an independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide leadership, knowledge, and resources to promote healthy children, youth, and communities. The Search Institute was interested in examining whether their research based developmental assets model for healthy children, families and communities was adaptable for American Indian communities. The Search Institute did not have extensive background with tribal communities and wanted assistance in examining what would be needed to develop a culturally appropriate model for American Indian children. In looking at this model, researchers from UMD’s American Indian Projects (AIP) wanted to explore the question, “What does it take to raise healthy Anishinaabeg children?”

This project grew out of concerns that people working with American Indian families frequently approach them from a deficit perspective. When looking at the history of these families there is also strong evidence of resilience in the face of genocide and policies that sought cultural assimilation. Traditional parenting practices were lost in many communities as a result of federal policies such as boarding schools, which sought to remove a generation of children from their homes and raise them in an institutional setting away from their parents and culture.

Typically research on tribal communities also focuses on negative traits rather than examining the positive assets and resiliency within the families. By shifting the focus to assets, the research team hoped to take a strength–based approach to child welfare and document tribal community experiences in raising healthy children.

The process utilized to conduct research on this topic is reflective of an indigenous approach. Prior to the application for project funding, the research team asked for input and permission to proceed from AIP’s American Indian Community Advisory Committee. The group had a lengthy discussion about the topic and decided that this project would be worthwhile to pursue. In addition, several people from different communities decided to explore whether their home reservation would be interested in hosting the pilot project.

In 2004, the Bremer Foundation provided the team with a three–year grant to focus on Anishinaabeg communities in northern Minnesota in order to discover whether tribal assets could be identified and to document cultural differences.

Once several communities expressed interest in the project, conversations were held with various tribal staff people in order to see if they were also interested and willing to help with the process. Finally, a formal request was made to the Reservation Business Committee (RBC) for their approval to conduct interviews with tribal Elders. This approval was granted; however, within a few months tribal elections resulted in a significant turnover in the RBC and several key staff positions. Therefore, discussions and permissions began again with staff members and were finally presented before the new RBC. These steps resulted in a significant time delay but were imperative for the long–term success of the project. When working with tribal communities, it is important to understand and respect the tribal sovereignty of reservations.

Once official permission was granted, the research team focused on an initial group of tribal Elders in two communities. A series of focus groups (or talking circles) were conducted, with information being brought back to the group for additional input. Individual interviews were added to gather more information from Elders. Several Elders were more comfortable providing their thoughts in Ojibwe rather than English. A fluent speaker from the American Indian Community Advisory Committee traveled with the AIP Director to interview these Elders and then translated their comments into English. Elders were compensated for their participation in the focus groups and interviews. A group of American Indian human service professionals was also interviewed. Throughout the project AIP’s Community Advisory Committee was involved in reviewing preliminary data, providing additional input and keeping watch over the direction of the project. Several members agreed to be interviewed for the project and their comments were incorporated into the results. Both the content of the interviews/focus groups and the process of approaching the communities about the project were recorded.

The grant’s project director is an enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and a full professor who has worked with the Department of Social Work and AIP for the last 15 years. The AIP Director, also an enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, participated in conducting the focus groups and individual interviews. Their long–term relationships in the area, family ties, and reputations for working collaboratively with tribes were a key component in the team’s entrée into the communities. As a non–Native faculty member at the UMD Department of Social Work, I was present at some focus groups, but took a back seat in data gathering for the project. My role involved data analysis and working on how to present findings to majority culture professionals who are working with Native children and families.

Research findings

The Search Institute’s model divides developmental assets into two categories; internal and external. Internal assets are broadly defined as those values, behaviors, and skills that children develop that assist them in making life choices. External assets are broadly defined as things that surround children to help them feel positive about themselves (Scales & Leffert, 2004). For the purposes of this research we set the Search Institute model aside while we gathered data and then used an assets framework to create an adapted model for Anishinaabeg children. This summary reflects the preliminary analysis of the research.

We began by asking Elders to discuss both what a healthy Anishinaabe child “looked like” and what kind of parenting and support they thought was needed to raise a healthy child. They stated that a healthy child is:

• “One that makes good decisions on his own and applies values to their life”
• “Has a positive self identification”
• “Is comfortable with who they are”
• “Has spiritual connectedness”
• “ Is part of a family unit” which included extended family and cultural community

The adapted model for Anishinaabeg families included four external asset categories: support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time. The four internal asset categories identified were: commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies and positive identity. The following table provides specifics about each of the asset categories.

Adapted Model for Anishinaabeg Families (Priscilla Day, 2006)

External Assets	Internal Assets
Support: Family, extended family, other adults Positive communication Caring community/school Parents involved with education	Commitment to Learning: Wants to achieve–believes in self Engaged with school (activities, school work, positive school relationship) Enjoys reading Cultural activities are integrated into life (language, ceremonies, crafts)
Empowerment: Youth feels important and safe in community Youth learn importance of service to others Youth are involved in cultural activities	Positive Values: Concern for others Big picture (social justice, interconnectedness of all life) Exhibits honesty, integrity, humility, humor, responsibility, respect
Boundaries and Expectations: Family, school, and community expectations clear Has positive adult role models Has high expectations for self	Social Competencies: Able to plan and make good decisions (resistance skills) Gets along with others Understands and appreciates culture (own and others) Demonstrates leadership Engages in and facilitates conflict resolution
Constructive Use of Time: Engages in creative activities (cultural, organized youth activities, school) Engages in spiritual/religious activities Has roles at home/family/community	Positive Identity: Feels good about self Has a positive view of future (hopeful) Believes they can make a difference in the world (“When I grow up I want to be…”) Feels connected to family/culture/tribe

Elders described ways to help children become healthy adults that included things like involving them in daily activities; for example, helping with housekeeping, and taking them along when hunting, fishing, or berry picking. One of the human service professionals discussed the importance for children to learn by having responsibilities. “It used to be that kids were responsible for things like shoveling for the Elders, but then we came along and created chore services for the Elders.” He stated that in trying to improve formal services an unintended consequence was that kids no longer have meaningful roles that they can feel pride in and don’t feel responsibility for the community.

Many expressed the importance of involving children in cultural events by attending pow–wows and doing arts and crafts. Several stated that these activities help Native children to “develop a sense of cultural pride” and that “culture reinforces identity”. Elders also spoke about the importance of receiving spiritual guidance and participating in traditional ceremonies. One elder told the story of his son being ill and taking him back home to his reservation. Once there he was given an Indian name and after that he got well.

Many examples were given of the importance of praising children, not just for the outcomes, but also for making a good effort. This helps children feel rewarded for trying. Elders spoke of the importance of “trial and error” with children. “Let them make mistakes, don’t be critical, let them figure things out for themselves. Over time, they will gain more competence with the particular activity instead of giving up for not doing it well enough.” The example was given that we are so busy today that we sometimes just tell our children what to do and this robs them of the chance to think about and problem solve for themselves. When this is done repeatedly, children never have to think about how to do things for themselves. At the same time, Elders also spoke about making sure that children experience success. “Don’t expect them to do things beyond their ability, praise them when they do well.”

One elder talked about planting a garden when her children were small and that the children kept walking over the newly planted seeds. “We decided to give them a corner of the garden that was theirs. They learned on their own not to walk on their plants and took pride in keeping it weeded. They felt good when it grew up and they could harvest it”.

An elder spoke about the importance of allowing children to “explore and learn about the world”. Often today, children do not understand the connection of plants and animals to their survival. “Our children need to know about how we are all connected in order to respect the world around them”. Another gave this advice, “Be involved with your grand children and spend a lot of time together. Take them for walks in the woods. Point out the trees, the bugs, the rocks, the stars.”

Most Elders also discussed the significance of teaching children important values. This included traditional Native ways of behavior such as how to treat Elders, how to behave at ceremonies, and gender roles. The concepts of sharing and generosity were also identified as important. “When I was growing up, even if you had just a little, you shared it with others”. The concept of cooperation and working as a group was also mentioned as an important values to teach children. Respect for the earth and all its creatures, staying close and helping extended family, and practicing traditional ways were identified as “living a good Anishinaabe life”.

When asked what the tribe or community could do to help support raising healthy children, the Elders spoke about a variety of different things including offering parenting classes, providing day care, creating opportunities for family and community healing, and the promotion of traditional ceremonies, traditional songs, and other traditional activities. Others spoke about community initiatives led by Elders invested in retaining traditional values and practices that promote family.

Conclusions and implications for improving services

In conclusion, a number of key points stand out when looking at the preliminary results of this research. Many of the findings show that tribal people utilize similar developmental assets in raising their children as non–Native parents, however the ways in which assets are developed and used may be culturally unique. Throughout this research, the need to promote a healthy cultural identity for Native children is apparent. This includes a strong emphasis on being exposed to and learning traditional values and ways of viewing the world. It also includes making sure that children are given the opportunities to have meaningful roles in the community, and to be involved in daily activities and chores which allow them to spend time with family and extended family while learning about their culture. Promotion of healthy cultural identity can have a powerful effect on Native children’s overall healthy development. Knowing this can allow counselors, parent–educators, teachers, and others to understand the importance of using cultural activities and teachings when working with Native children.

As a non–Native person involved in this project I felt honored to be included in these critical discussions. It was important, however, that I not be the lead person when asking certain questions, such as those involving traditional parenting practices. This project also set aside the Search Institute framework in order to not have it drive the conclusions that we were gathering through our discussions. The data gathering process took longer than anticipated, which is to be expected in this type of community driven research. The ability to listen and let the process take the time it needs is imperative in working successfully in tribal communities. The other key component was a process of continuous review and reframing by the AIP Community Advisory Committee throughout the data gathering and analysis process. This reflects an indigenous approach to research.

Summary

It is our hope that these two case examples can provide concrete examples of successful collaboration between a University and tribal communities. It is beneficial for academic programs interested in working with tribal communities to create permanent structures to support this work. Programs like AIP have the ability to create long–term relationships with communities over a series of projects, which can greatly enhance the depth and breadth of the work being accomplished. A key component of these relationships is the involvement of faculty and staff members who are also members of area tribal communities and are seen as trusted partners in the process. In addition, the involvement of community professionals and Elders in overseeing the work of AIP strengthens ties with tribal communities and allows the collaboration to move beyond the historic mistrust of academia and research.

References

American Indian Projects (2004).

Minnesota Anishinaabe: Nations and people – An information and resource manual. Duluth, MN: University of Minnesota–Duluth.

Brave Heart, M. (1999).

Oyate Ptayela: Rebuilding the Lakota nation through addressing historical trauma among Lakota parents. In Hilary Weaver (Ed.), Voices of First Nations People: Human Services Consideration (p. 109–126). New York: Haworth Press.

Day, P., Blue, E. & Peake Raymond, M. (1998).

Conducting research with an urban American Indian community: A collaborative approach. Journal of American Indian Education, (Winter), 21–33.

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. Society for Nutrition Education, 37, 67–76.

Letiecq, B. & Bailey, S. (2004).

Evaluating from the outside: Conducting cross–cultural evaluation research on an American Indian reservation. Evaluation Review, 28(4), 342–357.

Lomawaima, K. Tsianina (2000).

Tribal Sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 1–21.

Manson, S., Garroutte, E., Goins, R.T. and Henderson, P.N. (2004).

Access, relevance, and control in the research process: Lessons from Indian country. Journal of Aging and Health, 16 (5), 58S–77S.

Red Horse, J., Martinez, C., Day, P., Day, D., Poupart, J., Scharnberg, D. (2000).

Family preservation concepts in American Indian communities. Portland: Casey Family Programs.

Poupart,J., Martinez, C., Red Horse, J., Scharnberg, D. (2000).

To build a bridge. An introduction to working with American Indian communities. St. Paul: American Indian Policy Center.

Scales, P. and Leffert, N. (2004).

Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development (2nd Ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Sobeck, J., Chapleski, E. & Fisher, C. (2003).

Conducting research with American Indians: A case study of motives, methods, and results. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12 (1), 69–84.

Whitbeck, L. (2006).

Some guiding assumptions and a theoretical model for developing culturally specific preventions with Native American people. Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (2), 183–192

---

How to Cite this Article

APA

Tellett, A & Day, P. (2008, Spring). Creating University and Tribal Community Collaborations. Bemaadizing. Retrieved [add date of access], from http://www.bemaadizing.org/2008/04/21/creating-university-and-tribal-community-collaborations/

MLA

Tellett, A & Day, P. “Creating University and Tribal Community Collaborations.” Bemaadizing. Spring 2008. [add date of access], <http://www.bemaadizing.org/2008/04/21/creating-university-and-tribal-community-collaborations/>.