Publication date

As shown in Table 2, the studies were all published between 2006 and 2017. Interest in using PAR with Inuit communities seems to have grown from the mid-2000s onward. The three studies from 2013 had the same two authors and dealt with the same research project. Thus, interest in PAR remained stable from 2006 to 2017: 0 to 2 studies per year. Since we focused our research on the years after 2000, our results do not provide a complete timeline of the emergence of PAR in the scientific literature concerning the Inuit.

Table 2. Publication date of studies.

Origins of researchers

There was a total of 40 authors, including certain groups or institutions (a nation, a council or a resource centre). In that total, Badry and Felske appear as co-authors of three of the eleven selected articles. Healey appears twice.

Although our search covered all regions of the Arctic, the authors came almost exclusively from Canada: nine studies were by people based in Canada and two by people based in the USA. Our search included the French-language literature, but all the studies we selected were in English. All the authors of any one study came from the same country. The oldest studies were by the Americans Allen and Wexler and were both published in 2006. The first Canadian study was published in 2009.

Table 3 shows the geographic distribution of the authors by location of institutional affiliation. The figure in parentheses is a count of first authors only (the authors who appeared first in the bibliographic references). First authors came from nine of the eleven states or provinces that the different authors came from. Among all the authors, those from Nunavut (25%) and Ontario (25%) were the most numerous, followed by those from Alaska (13%). The high number (38%) of authors from Inuit territories (Nunavut and Alaska), both Inuit and non-Inuit, reveals the importance of local contributors. No authors came from Russia, Greenland or Denmark. None came from any other country.

Table 3. Authors by location of institutional affiliation.

Communities under study

Nine of the eleven studies were done in Inuit territories. Eight took place in Canadian Inuit territories: one in Kangiqliniq (Rankin Inlet), Nunavut (Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017); two in Iqaluit, Nunavut (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Lardeau, Healey, & Ford, Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011); one in different Nunavik communities (Garakani, Reference Garakani2014) and three in the Northwest Territories (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c). Two studies took place with Iñupiat and Yup’iit communities in Alaska: one in Northwest Alaska (Wexler, Reference Wexler2006) and the other “[…] in seven remote villages and a small urban regional center in Southwestern Alaska” (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006, p. 49). Finally, two studies took place outside Inuit territories, in Ottawa, Ontario (Morris, Reference Morris2016; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009). No study was done in either Chukotka or Greenland.

Discipline

We also collected data on the academic discipline of all the authors. As shown in Table 4, we identified a total of 12 disciplines, as well as two categories for authors who could not be assigned to a discipline: “local experts” (18%), either groups or individuals and “unknown” (10%). Most of the disciplines belong either to the health sciences or to the social sciences. Two disciplines belong to both: disability studies (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c) and Indigenous health studies (Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009). In the table, we have separated the author data into two separate columns: first authors (column 3) and other authors, i.e. all but the first authors (column 4).

Table 4. Authors by field of research and discipline.

Most of the authors were doing research in the social sciences (45%). Nonetheless, the most frequent discipline, public health (13%), belongs to the health sciences. The second-most-frequent was psychology (10%), a social science. Discipline and field of research varied among the authors of each study. Four studies (36%) brought together authors from both the social sciences and the health sciences (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011). If a study had more than one author, there were always at least two disciplines among the authors, and sometimes three (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009). Several studies (18%) had local experts as co-authors, including Inuit. Under the term “local experts,” we included Métis and First Nations and individuals who lived on the territory where the research took place. No study had authors from the environmental sciences.

Participation

The participatory approach was often defined in terms of engagement, co-research and empowerment. Engagement was especially key, being mentioned by all authors but Tulloch et al (Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). PAR was often specifically presented as a means to engage research participants (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c, p. 8; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009, p. 444; Wexler, Reference Wexler2006, p. 2940). Participants were even identified as co-researchers by Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006), Badry and Felske (Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b), and Lardeau et al. (Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011). As co-researchers, they were brought into all aspects and stages of research. “[PAR] is research in which ‘research participants’ (called ‘subjects’ in traditional research) decide the research objectives, research question, research methodology, [and] are involved in data collection and analysis” (Morris & Muzychka, Reference Morris and Muzychka2002, p. 10). Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 91) stated that “research participants and collaborators ‘own’ the research process”.

In five (45%) cases, such engagement was presented as a way to empower the participants by helping them to increase power over their lives (Morris, Reference Morris2016, p. 107) or by enabling them to use the results to “improve the quality of life in the community” (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 91). For this reason, PAR was seen as particularly appropriate for work with marginalised people (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, p. 148, Reference Badry and Felske2013c).

When working “with Indigenous peoples, who have traditionally been objects of research while having little control over research topics, methods, analysis, or communication and use of the results” (Morris, Reference Morris2016, p. 107), the authors clearly saw PAR as a tool to decolonise research. Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) cited the World Health Organisation (1986) to argue that participatory research, “in its ability to allow for ‘the revising of epistemologies and power structures in research,’ had the potential to address the themes of empowerment, community development, and action on the underlying determinants of health” (Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009, p. 438). If the research engages the participants and uses a decolonised method, their knowledge and expertise can be incorporated more easily (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 91).

All the studies without exception emphasised the participants’ voice in the production of knowledge. This point was formulated in various ways, be it their “voice” (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c; Garakani, Reference Garakani2014; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017), their “perspectives” (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013b; Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011), their “knowledge” (Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) or their “narratives” (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Wexler, Reference Wexler2006). Morris (Reference Morris2016, p. 109) simply mentioned, as a research goal, that she had asked the participants for their advice. There were also differences in how the participants’ voices were considered: “explored” (Healey et al. Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011); “identified” (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013c); “described” (Wexler, Reference Wexler2006); “understood” (Allen et al. Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009), “included” (Garakani Reference Garakani2014, p. 238) or “enhanced” (Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017, p. 450).

Action

Morris (Reference Morris2016) cited MacDonald (Reference MacDonald2012) to express the idea “that PAR is a subset of action research, the goal of which is to make a specific change, and not just to produce research” (p. 107). She also quoted Brydon-Miller, Kral, Maguire, Noffke, and Sabhlok (Reference Brydon-Miller, Kral, Maguire, Noffke, Sabhlok, Denzin and Lincoln2011), saying PAR has the aim of “using research to solve community problems” (Morris, Reference Morris2016, p. 107). For Badry and Felske (Reference Badry and Felske2013b, interest in community life seemed to go hand in hand with a transformative aim: “Using PAR as an approach is concerned with research in the social life and within communities that is potentially transformative (Kemmis and McTaggart, Reference Kemmis, McTaggart, Denzin and Lincoln2000)” (p. 148). Finally, Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011) called for transformation both in community life and in research protocols (p. 91).

The goal of social change could take different forms: prevention, intervention, education and training. In several cases, the aim was not to transform reality but rather to provide training or create tools and methods that the participants, or the public in general, would eventually use to improve their situation.

As shown in Table 6, prevention was the goal of most research projects about health and wellbeing (88%). While five of them (45%) sought only to identify factors for prevention and key information on how to prevent, Morris (Reference Morris2016) and Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006) also included development of a prevention strategy. A food security project also had a prevention goal: identifying factors for personal food security in the hope they would be used for intervention or prevention.

Table 6. Action goals by research themes and authors.

Education was seen as another important way to engage in social transformation. Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011) decided to “combine a research project with an educational opportunity” (p. 90) at a research skills workshop. Their project resulted in a plan to promote social action on the health impacts of climate change. Overall, they saw it as contributing to social capacity building (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 95).

Tulloch et al. (Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017) developed, delivered and assessed a learning program, which they called “transformational learning”. The research participants also participated in the learning program. They learned by participating.

Garakani (Reference Garakani2014), who was interested in education, mentioned no clear goal of social change (pp. 250–251). Her project’s transformative dimension seems to have been the research process itself. She sought to apply new methodologies and tools to research with Indigenous youth. For Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009), the goal of social change seems to have been either indirect or projected into a time after the project (p. 443).

Participant characteristics

The research participants ranged in number from 6 (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011) to 178 (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006). Four projects had fewer than 20 (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c; Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011), and four had more than 20 (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017; Wexler, Reference Wexler2006). Some authors did not specify the number of participants (Garakani, Reference Garakani2014; Morris, Reference Morris2016; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009). There seems to be no link between the number of participants and the research theme or discipline. Participants were of all ages and genders.

The studies did not always clearly state who the Inuit participants were and what their affiliation was. However, we could identify some as representatives of Inuit organisations and others as Inuit individuals. Five projects had representatives from a local organisation, as well as individuals (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011; Morris, Reference Morris2016; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). The studies used various terms to describe the roles of the Inuit organisations. In two projects, Inuit organisations were presented as project leaders (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). In Morris (Reference Morris2016) and Wexler (Reference Wexler2006), they were called partners. Lardeau et al. (Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011) and Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) spoke of collaboration. Participation was particularly strong when Inuit individuals were on the research team, as was the case with three projects (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). In five projects, which used the photovoice method, Inuit were considered to be participants/researchers (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c; Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 91; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011). In Morris (Reference Morris2016) and Garakani (Reference Garakani2014), student participants took part in the research design.

In projects with Inuit on the research team (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017), those team members took part in every research stage: (1) developing the protocol; (2) recruiting the participants; (3) gathering the data; (4) analysing the data and (5) writing up the paper. In projects with no Inuit on the research team, Inuit participated in two or more research stages. If we look at all the projects, data gathering was the only stage where Inuit were always present. The results of this analysis are presented in subcategories that range from initial creation of the study protocol to dissemination of the research results.

Developing the protocol

Seven of the eleven studies (64%) brought Inuit into development of the research protocol. This stage is generally used to determine the subject of research, the research question, the goals, the methodology (research process or design, including instruments) and the ethical guidelines. This stage engaged Inuit in different ways: as researchers (Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017), as a partner organisation (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011; Morris, Reference Morris2016), as advisory committee members (Morris, Reference Morris2016), as community representatives (Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009), as a consultant team (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006), as a project coordination council (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006) or as research participants (Garakani, Reference Garakani2014).

Inuit seem to have played the greatest role in Tulloch et al. (Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017); they fully assumed the role of researchers and controlled the protocol. Next in line would be Morris (Reference Morris2016). Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, the partner organisation, worked with the researchers on research design from the very beginning, even before the proposal was submitted for the grant application (Morris, Reference Morris2016, pp. 108, 110), Then the “research design was completely transformed through further consultations with Inuit youth, organizations, and healers” (Ibid. p. 108) to bring it into line with Inuit traditional values (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit). In Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011), the community chose the topic and the goals and developed the ethical guidelines. In Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006), Alaska Native co-researchers, who lacked specialist research training, were involved in formulating the research questions and “provided input to the design, structure, and content of the interview procedures” (p. 46). In Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) and Lardeau et al. (Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011), it is unclear how Inuit actually participated in the protocol development, but collaboration with the communities was mentioned at this stage. Finally, in Garakani (Reference Garakani2014), student participants only helped determine the research tools (p. 239).

Recruiting the participants

In four of the eleven studies (36%), Inuit were actively involved in recruiting research participants, most of the time as research team members (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017), and in one case both as an organisation and as participants/researchers (Morris, Reference Morris2016). In Lardeau et al. (Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011), a local interpreter helped a non-Inuit research assistant recruit participants in the communities (p. 5).

Collecting the data

Inuit participated in data collection in all projects but Garakani’s. Inuit were especially brought into two kinds of data collection: photovoice and focus group. The first kind was presented as specific to PAR and used in five studies (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c; Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011). According to the authors’ definition, it clearly complied with PAR principles, particularly by positioning participants as researchers (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 91) or as co-researchers (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011, p. 4). Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 91) stressed its educational and participatory nature, while Lardeau et al. (Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011, pp. 4–5) emphasised its capacity to give voice to marginalised people.

Three studies used focus groups (Morris, Reference Morris2016; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Wexler, Reference Wexler2006). In Morris (Reference Morris2016), Inuit facilitated and led the focus group (p. 118). In Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009), an Inuk co-facilitated the focus group together with a research team member (p. 4). In Wexler (Reference Wexler2006), no Inuit led any of the focus groups, but an Indigenous colleague took notes during Regional Suicide Prevention Taskforce meetings (p. 2940).

In Garakani (Reference Garakani2014), although participants were not presented as co-researchers, they did take part in activities to encourage community participation, such as writing a collective story and taking photos in the communities (pp. 45, 49). Other projects had more conventional methods to get Inuit to participate. Tulloch et al. (Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017) used semi-structured interviews, closed questionnaires and participant observation. Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006) used life story interviews, individual interviews and extensive survey interviews. Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) employed focus groups and interviews with key informants (p. 438). They also used an online survey, but the reader is not told whether Inuit took part in data collection.

Data analysis

Inuit took part in data analysis in eight studies (73%). Here again, they clearly took part in those projects where they were on the research team (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) specified that non-Indigenous and Indigenous co-researchers mutually analysed the data, and “in the rare case that academic and community researcher interpretations differed, the community interpretation was adapted” (p. 5).

In the three projects (and five published papers) that used photovoice, participants/researchers did most of the photo analysis, in compliance with the photovoice method. In Lardeau et al. (Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011), “because the participants identified the topics of the photos, analysed them in group discussion, and then categorized them in a process that required agreement by consensus, they were the instrumental analytical ‘tools’ for this study” (p. 6). In Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011), participants “were asked to describe the rationale behind their photographs and to share the stories, perspectives, and experiences represented in these images”, and they “created a model of the themes identified during the analysis to illustrate the relationships they felt were crucial to understanding their perspective” (p. 91) on the research subject. Badry and Felske (Reference Badry and Felske2013c) began analysis of their images and texts by showing them to their participants via PowerPoint presentations for “an initial process of coding and theming” (p. 9).

Inuit contributed more informally to analysis in two projects. Garakani (Reference Garakani2014) wrote that “the collection and analysis of the data took place simultaneously […]. At every stage, the data was analyzed and presented to the participants for their feedback” (p. 239). For his part, Wexler (Reference Wexler2006) pointed out that his Inuit colleagues, though not recognised as co-researchers, had “ample opportunities to influence the direction” of [his] analyses” (p. 2940).

Writing up the study

Inuit took part in writing up only four of the studies (36%). Their names appear in the authors’ list either as a group (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) or as individuals (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). No information is provided about their role in the writing process. Were they actually co-authors or was their involvement more informal, such as reading and commenting on the text?

Knowledge transfer

In all the studies, Inuit participation was acknowledged for one type of knowledge transfer or another. In six studies (55%), Inuit took part at the end of the research. For Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009), community engagement in knowledge transfer was a means to achieve PAR goals of empowerment and action; in fact, it was key to community-driven action (pp. 8–9). When Inuit were on the research team, such engagement went without saying (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006; Smylie et al., Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009; Tulloch et al., Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017). In Tulloch et al. (Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017), the Indigenous research team had “to pass on what they learned, including training instructors in other communities” (p. 456). In the projects with no Inuit researchers, the participants took part in knowledge transfer. Healey et al. (Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011) explained that the “participants collectively decided how to share the results of the study with their communities, the research community, and the public general” (p. 91). In Garakani (Reference Garakani2014), the student participants worked with the researcher “to create a one-minute video that was presented at the closing of an important community meeting” (pp. 248–249), as well as to other teachers and students.

Seven studies showed Inuit participation in knowledge transfer that was not simply dissemination of results but also sharing of data, information and knowledge at various points during the research. Wexler (Reference Wexler2006) wrote that information and data were shared with community members repeatedly over the 2-year study to foster community based-action, in addition to regular “suicide prevention education and outreach in the 12 villages of the region” (p. 2940). Skills training is a way to empower community members through knowledge transfer on a recurrent basis, and such transfer can be done in various ways and at different research stages. Among the projects presented here, the research team provided training in digital camera use (Badry & Felske, Reference Badry and Felske2013a, Reference Badry and Felske2013b, Reference Badry and Felske2013c; Lardeau et al., Reference Lardeau, Healey and Ford2011), coding techniques (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006, p. 46) or research skills in general (Healey et al., Reference Healey, Magner, Ritter, Kamookak, Aningmiuq, Issaluk, Mackenzie, Allardyce, Stockdale and Moffit2011, p. 95).

Summary of Inuit participation

Inuit participation in the various stages of research is summarised in Table 7. It was most widespread during knowledge transfer, since all projects had Inuit participation at that stage. It was second-most widespread during data collection (91%). Inuit participated the least in recruiting (45%) and in writing up the study (36%).

Table 7. Inuit participation in different research stages by study.

Hindering factors

Morris (Reference Morris2016) named four factors that hindered the project. First, and foremost, there was a lack of funds to act on certain recommendations made by the Inuit participants, such as travelling to all Inuit regions for face-to-face interviews and translating materials into every dialect. Second, it proved impossible to organise the Inuit advisory committee as anticipated and convene committee meetings. Reasons included the disparate locations of the committee members and the limited time each member could give to the project because of other responsibilities. Consequently, “the research and project lead came to rely on direct face-to-face input from Inuit stakeholders” (Morris, Reference Morris2016, p. 120). Third, it was a challenge to get youth participants to come to the focus group, especially because of significant constraints on the choice of date (scheduling conflicts with partners and grant deadline). Fourth, the use of a lengthy and law-oriented consent letter for the online survey, as required by the academic ethics board, discouraged “most people who visited the survey page [and] did not start the survey” (Ibid. p. 121).

Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009, p. 9) wrote that use of PAR might jeopardise research credibility in the eyes of the scientific community. One reason was that Inuit co-researchers generally received only brief training in research methods. The research team thus had a twofold challenge: the research protocol had to meet scientific requirements, while respecting local practices and perspectives.

Helping factors

The authors had more to say about the factors that helped PAR. Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Mohatt, Rasmus, Hazel, Thomas and Lindley2006) stressed the importance of sustained and significant involvement of Indigenous co-researchers. Co-researchers also facilitated data collection and were better at recruiting research participants (Ibid. p. 54). Tulloch et al. (Reference Tulloch, Kusugak, Chenier, Pilakapsi, Uluqsi and Walton2017, p. 441) pointed out that local ownership of the project, and its action components were key to project success. Smylie et al. (Reference Smylie, Kaplan-Myrth and McShane2009) wrote that “[f]requent consultation between community and academic researcher team members during data analysis supported the collaborative approach” (p. 9). Wexler (Reference Wexler2006) observed that flexibility in the research process facilitated community involvement (p. 2940).

Finally, Morris (Reference Morris2016) listed 11 factors for success in participatory action research: (1) having a pre-existing relationship of trust between the researcher and the Inuit partner; (2) for team members who do not have pre-existing relationships, spending informal time with the partner in order to build a relationship; (3) having the organisation partner choose the research topic; (4) bringing Inuit youth (the participants) into development of the research protocol and into the advisory community; (5) getting experienced Inuit healers and elders involved in the research setting and the research instruments and (6) using media coverage to reach out to the community. Finally, there were factors for focus group success: (7) ensuring the visibility of Inuit in leadership roles; (8) creating a culturally safe space; (9) including cultural practices; (10) establishing group rules and (11) making counsellors and elders available to provide support (pp. 116–119).