Laticia J. Herkshan, Georgia M. Hart‐Fredeluces, Elizabeth A. Redd, TJ Tso, Morey Burnham
{"title":"共同的理想,但持续的障碍:改善部落与大学的研究合作,加强原住民国家建设和农村发展☆。","authors":"Laticia J. Herkshan, Georgia M. Hart‐Fredeluces, Elizabeth A. Redd, TJ Tso, Morey Burnham","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research partnerships between Tribal Nations and rural colleges and universities can support rural development and strengthen Tribal Nation building through reclamation of economic, political, cultural, and social affairs. However, Tribal Nation–University relationships have received little attention in rural sociology. While scholars identify best practices for research engagement in light of colonial harms, the ideal visions that Tribally and university‐affiliated people have for research partnerships and the barriers to achieving those ideals are poorly understood. Without identifying these visions and barriers, we risk making wrong assumptions about each party's needs and cannot implement appropriate policies. Semi‐structured interviews with Tribally‐affiliated (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 20) and university‐affiliated (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 20) people in rural southeastern Idaho suggest, contrary to literature on best practices for collaborative research, that participants in both groups viewed what we term “Tribally‐responsive research engagement” as ideal, though few projects met this goal. Tribally‐responsive research directly addressed Tribal priorities but did not necessarily involve close collaboration. The University's failure to acknowledge past or colonial harms, university‐affiliated researchers' historicization of those harms, and negative Native student experiences reinforced distrust, limiting desired research engagement. In sum, Tribally‐responsive research engagement could strengthen Native Nation building, but requires universities to acknowledge harms, create more welcoming campus environments, and prioritize Tribal benefits in research.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared Ideals, But Persistent Barriers: Improving Tribal‐University Research Engagement to Strengthen Native Nation Building and Rural Development☆\",\"authors\":\"Laticia J. Herkshan, Georgia M. Hart‐Fredeluces, Elizabeth A. Redd, TJ Tso, Morey Burnham\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ruso.12559\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research partnerships between Tribal Nations and rural colleges and universities can support rural development and strengthen Tribal Nation building through reclamation of economic, political, cultural, and social affairs. However, Tribal Nation–University relationships have received little attention in rural sociology. While scholars identify best practices for research engagement in light of colonial harms, the ideal visions that Tribally and university‐affiliated people have for research partnerships and the barriers to achieving those ideals are poorly understood. Without identifying these visions and barriers, we risk making wrong assumptions about each party's needs and cannot implement appropriate policies. Semi‐structured interviews with Tribally‐affiliated (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 20) and university‐affiliated (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 20) people in rural southeastern Idaho suggest, contrary to literature on best practices for collaborative research, that participants in both groups viewed what we term “Tribally‐responsive research engagement” as ideal, though few projects met this goal. Tribally‐responsive research directly addressed Tribal priorities but did not necessarily involve close collaboration. The University's failure to acknowledge past or colonial harms, university‐affiliated researchers' historicization of those harms, and negative Native student experiences reinforced distrust, limiting desired research engagement. In sum, Tribally‐responsive research engagement could strengthen Native Nation building, but requires universities to acknowledge harms, create more welcoming campus environments, and prioritize Tribal benefits in research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RURAL SOCIOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RURAL SOCIOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12559\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12559","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Shared Ideals, But Persistent Barriers: Improving Tribal‐University Research Engagement to Strengthen Native Nation Building and Rural Development☆
Research partnerships between Tribal Nations and rural colleges and universities can support rural development and strengthen Tribal Nation building through reclamation of economic, political, cultural, and social affairs. However, Tribal Nation–University relationships have received little attention in rural sociology. While scholars identify best practices for research engagement in light of colonial harms, the ideal visions that Tribally and university‐affiliated people have for research partnerships and the barriers to achieving those ideals are poorly understood. Without identifying these visions and barriers, we risk making wrong assumptions about each party's needs and cannot implement appropriate policies. Semi‐structured interviews with Tribally‐affiliated (n = 20) and university‐affiliated (n = 20) people in rural southeastern Idaho suggest, contrary to literature on best practices for collaborative research, that participants in both groups viewed what we term “Tribally‐responsive research engagement” as ideal, though few projects met this goal. Tribally‐responsive research directly addressed Tribal priorities but did not necessarily involve close collaboration. The University's failure to acknowledge past or colonial harms, university‐affiliated researchers' historicization of those harms, and negative Native student experiences reinforced distrust, limiting desired research engagement. In sum, Tribally‐responsive research engagement could strengthen Native Nation building, but requires universities to acknowledge harms, create more welcoming campus environments, and prioritize Tribal benefits in research.
期刊介绍:
A forum for cutting-edge research, Rural Sociology explores sociological and interdisciplinary approaches to emerging social issues and new approaches to recurring social issues affecting rural people and places. The journal is particularly interested in advancing sociological theory and welcomes the use of a wide range of social science methodologies. Manuscripts that use a sociological perspective to address the effects of local and global systems on rural people and places, rural community revitalization, rural demographic changes, rural poverty, natural resource allocations, the environment, food and agricultural systems, and related topics from all regions of the world are welcome. Rural Sociology also accepts papers that significantly advance the measurement of key sociological concepts or provide well-documented critical analysis of one or more theories as these measures and analyses are related to rural sociology.