Erika Blacksher1, Vanessa Y Hiratsuka2, Jessica W Blanchard3, Justin R Lund4, Justin Reedy5, Julie A Beans2, Bobby Saunkeah6, Micheal Peercy6, Christie Byars6, Joseph Yracheta7, Krystal S Tsosie7, Marcia O'Leary7, Guthrie Ducheneaux7, Paul G Spicer4. 1. Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. South Central Foundation Research Department, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 3. Center for Applied Social Research, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 4. Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 5. Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 6. Chickasaw Nation Department of Health, Division of Research and Public Health, Ada, Oklahoma, USA. 7. Missouri Breaks Industries, Inc, Research Department, Eagle Butte, South Dakota, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design, implementation, and process outcomes from three public deliberations held in three tribal communities. Although increasingly used around the globe to address collective challenges, our study is among the first to adapt public deliberation for use with exclusively Indigenous populations. In question was how to design deliberations for tribal communities and whether this adapted model would achieve key deliberative goals and be well received. METHODS: We adapted democratic deliberation, an approach to stakeholder engagement, for use with three tribal communities to respect tribal values and customs. Public deliberation convenes people from diverse backgrounds in reasoned reflection and dialogue in search of collective solutions. The deliberation planning process and design were informed by frameworks of enclave deliberation and community-based participatory research, which share key egalitarian values. The deliberations were collaboratively designed with tribal leadership and extensive partner input and involvement in the deliberations. Each deliberation posed different, locally relevant questions about genomic research, but used the same deliberation structure and measures to gauge the quality and experience of deliberation. RESULTS: A total of 52 individuals participated in the deliberations across all three sites. Deliberants were balanced in gender, spanned decades in age, and were diverse in educational attainment and exposure to health research. Overall, the deliberations were positively evaluated. Participant perceptions and external observer datasets depict three deliberations that offered intensive conversation experiences in which participants learned from one another, reported feeling respected and connected to one another, and endorsed this intensive form of engagement. CONCLUSION: The adapted deliberations achieved key deliberative goals and were generally well received. Limitations of the study are described.
BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design, implementation, and process outcomes from three public deliberations held in three tribal communities. Although increasingly used around the globe to address collective challenges, our study is among the first to adapt public deliberation for use with exclusively Indigenous populations. In question was how to design deliberations for tribal communities and whether this adapted model would achieve key deliberative goals and be well received. METHODS: We adapted democratic deliberation, an approach to stakeholder engagement, for use with three tribal communities to respect tribal values and customs. Public deliberation convenes people from diverse backgrounds in reasoned reflection and dialogue in search of collective solutions. The deliberation planning process and design were informed by frameworks of enclave deliberation and community-based participatory research, which share key egalitarian values. The deliberations were collaboratively designed with tribal leadership and extensive partner input and involvement in the deliberations. Each deliberation posed different, locally relevant questions about genomic research, but used the same deliberation structure and measures to gauge the quality and experience of deliberation. RESULTS: A total of 52 individuals participated in the deliberations across all three sites. Deliberants were balanced in gender, spanned decades in age, and were diverse in educational attainment and exposure to health research. Overall, the deliberations were positively evaluated. Participant perceptions and external observer datasets depict three deliberations that offered intensive conversation experiences in which participants learned from one another, reported feeling respected and connected to one another, and endorsed this intensive form of engagement. CONCLUSION: The adapted deliberations achieved key deliberative goals and were generally well received. Limitations of the study are described.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alaska Native; American Indian; ELSI; Genomics; community engagement; deliberation
Authors: Susan Dorr Goold; Michael A Neblo; Scott Y H Kim; Raymond D E Vries; Gene Rowe; Peter Muhlberger Journal: Hastings Cent Rep Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.683
Authors: Susan Dorr Goold; Andrea K Biddle; Glenn Klipp; Charles N Hall; Marion Danis Journal: J Health Polit Policy Law Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.265
Authors: Vence L Bonham; Toby Citrin; Stephen M Modell; Tené Hamilton Franklin; Esther W B Bleicher; Leonard M Fleck Journal: J Health Polit Policy Law Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.265
Authors: Katrina G Claw; Matthew Z Anderson; Rene L Begay; Krystal S Tsosie; Keolu Fox; Nanibaa' A Garrison Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Justin Reedy; Jessica W Blanchard; Justin Lund; Paul G Spicer; Christie Byars; Michael Peercy; Bobby Saunkeah; Erika Blacksher Journal: Front Genet Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Erika Blacksher; Susan Brown Trinidad; R Brian Woodbury; Scarlett E Hopkins; Erica L Woodahl; Bert B Boyer; Wylie Burke; Vanessa Hiratsuka Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 1.978
Authors: Jake M Robinson; Nicole Redvers; Araceli Camargo; Christina A Bosch; Martin F Breed; Lisa A Brenner; Megan A Carney; Ashvini Chauhan; Mauna Dasari; Leslie G Dietz; Michael Friedman; Laura Grieneisen; Andrew J Hoisington; Patrick F Horve; Ally Hunter; Sierra Jech; Anna Jorgensen; Christopher A Lowry; Ioana Man; Gwynne Mhuireach; Edauri Navarro-Pérez; Euan G Ritchie; Justin D Stewart; Harry Watkins; Philip Weinstein; Suzanne L Ishaq Journal: mSystems Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 6.496