Executive Summary
The NAFC’s Research Framework was created to support Friendship Centre-led research and to ensure that research involving Friendship Centres honours the standards of the Friendship Centre Movement. It is meant to be more than a set of research guidelines. It is a call to protect our stories, uphold our knowledge systems, and affirm our right to lead research in ways that reflect who we are.
As such, we envision two primary audiences for the NAFC’s Research Framework:
• Friendship Centres and their Provincial/Territorial Associations; and
• Researchers interested in working with Friendship Centres.
Too often, research in Indigenous communities has been extractive. It has taken knowledge without consent, without reciprocity, and without returning the value of what was shared. The NAFC’s Research Framework is part of a broader movement to change that pattern. It offers practical guidance to support research that is respectful, community-driven, and rooted in self-determination. This resource is intended to support the Friendship Centre Movement in navigating research in ways that protect community wellbeing, uphold cultural protocols, and strengthen trust and accountability.
At its foundation, the NAFC’s Research Framework is about:
Regenerative and relational approaches, which support research that strengthens the Friendship Centre Movement rather than simply producing information for outside use.
Research safety, which prioritizes the care and consent of Indigenous Elders, youth, Knowledge Holders, and all those involved.
Data sovereignty, which ensures that Friendship Centres and Friendship Centres’ Provincial/Territorial Associations (PTAs) maintain authority over how their knowledge is gathered, stored, and used.
Whether your Friendship Centre or PTA is leading a research initiative, collaborating with partners, or simply exploring how to engage with research, the NAFC’s Research Framework is here to help. It offers tools to support meaningful decision-making, clarify expectations, and guide conversations about research with Friendship Centres.
About the NAFC
The National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) is a network of over 100 Friendship Centres and seven Provincial and Territorial Associations (PTAs) from coast-to-coast-to-coast. Friendship Centres represent the most significant off-reserve Indigenous service delivery infrastructure in the Canada and are the primary providers of culturally enhanced programs and services to urban Indigenous peoples. The NAFC adopts the following definition of urban Indigenous peoples:
First Nation, Inuit and Métis people living in small, medium and large communities, including rural, isolated and remote communities, which are: offreserve; outside of their home community, community of origin or settlement; or outside of Inuit Nunangat (Inuit Homelands).
This definition is based on the following interconnected elements which are considered and reflected in our definition of “urban Indigenous peoples”:
• Demographic evolution
• Complex identities
• Geographic inclusion
• Portability of rights
• Jurisdictional wrangling
As the national membership body of the Friendship Centre Movement, the NAFC is a democratically governed, status blind and accountable to its membership. In its 2020-2030 Strategic Plan, the NAFC identified the importance of becoming a leader in the area of urban Indigenous research and policy. To this end, it committed to building upon its existing research capacity to lead and participate in research nationally and support the research capacity of Friendship Centres and their Provincial Territorial Associations.
The NAFC’s Research Framework establishes foundational guidelines for participation in research that aligns with and supports the Friendship Centre Movement’s mission and core values. The Framework will support NAFC’s members in determining how to advance research initiatives and projects that honour the expertise and lived experience of Friendship Centres and the urban Indigenous communities they serve.
Introduction: How to Navigate this Framework
The National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) is committed to transforming the research environment to better reflect the rights and self-determination of urban Indigenous peoples.
This transformation is guided by a research framework aligned with NAFC’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan and its broader mission to support culturally appropriate, community-driven, and evidence-based programming.
The Research Framework’s overarching goals are:
1. To promote, preserve, and protect Traditional/Indigenous Knowledges and knowledge systems. [see Section 1]
2. To establish the NAFC’s Research Centre which will work to shift the current research landscape toward one that is supportive of community-driven research grounded in Indigenous knowledge, protocol, and processes. [see Section 2]
3. To honor, support, and build upon existing Friendship Centre research capacity and expertise. [see Section 3 & Toolkit Appendices]
The NAFC Research Framework was developed with the understanding that Friendship Centres may vary widely in their readiness and capacity to engage in research, and this diversity must be respected and accommodated in any research initiative.
Some Friendship Centres and Provincial/Territorial Associations (PTAs) may have well-established research protocols, infrastructure, and trained personnel, enabling them to lead research projects independently and mentor other Friendship Centres and PTAs. While others may be in earlier stages of developing their research capacity and may prefer to play a more supportive or advisory role, depending on the scope, goals, and resource demands of the project. This variation is not a reflection of interest or value but rather of differing priorities, experiences, and available resources.
The NAFC’s Research Framework is designed as a unifying resource which respects each Friendship Centre’s self-determined level of involvement by ensuring that research is conducted ethically and collaboratively and supporting Friendship Centres to engage in research that aligns with their vision, capacity, and consent.
Section 1: Our Foundations and Principles
NAFC’s work is rooted in the lived realities of urban Indigenous communities and the supportive networks formed by the Friendship Centre Movement.
Urban Indigenous communities are diverse, vibrant, and deeply knowledgeable. Many Indigenous people living in urban areas carry the complex legacies of movement. Some community members have been displaced or disconnected from ancestral territories, while others have deep roots in urban spaces, where cultures continue to grow and thrive. Friendship Centres were created to support this phenomenon and to ensure all our relations are supported, safe, and thriving in urban communities.
Research that endeavours to draw from the Friendship Centre Movement must be grounded in an appreciation of this diversity, and in respect for the specific histories, geographies, and relationships that shape the evolving stories of how urban Indigenous people live, gather, and belong in the city and in rural areas.
It is this context from which we establish the foundations and principles that support Friendship Centreled research and ensure that research involving Friendship Centres honours the standards of the Friendship Centre Movement.
Our research foundations demonstrate the elements required for a good working relationship while our research principles set out clear definitions that illuminate a pathway for working together. Together, our research foundations and principles provide a set of minimum requirements for working on research within the Friendship Centre Movement.
Section 1 of the NAFC’s Research Framework should be treated as the ground floor of a research relationship that will be tailored to the specific cultural and geographic contexts of each individual Friendship Centre or Provincial/Territorial Association (PTA).
NAFC’s Research Foundations: Moving from Extractive to Regenerative Research
Indigenous Peoples have faced centuries of extractive research characterized by academic inquiry that prioritized the interests of researchers and institutions over the well-being and rights of Indigenous communities. Historically, this research was conducted without informed consent, cultural sensitivity, or benefit to the communities involved. It frequently involved the dehumanization of Indigenous Peoples through the theft of their knowledges, bodies, and sacred items, which were then used to advance careers, publish findings, or build museum collections, often without returning results or benefits to the people studied. This practice has contributed to the marginalization and misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples, reinforcing colonial power dynamics and extractive colonial systems.
In recent decades, there has been growing recognition of these harms, leading to calls for ethical research practices that center Indigenous sovereignty, knowledge systems, and community-led methodologies.
The NAFC’s Research Framework counters this legacy of extractive research, emphasizing that Indigenous research must focus on restoring and strengthening relationships that Indigenous Peoples have with their own spirits, each other, their lands/waters, knowledges, ceremonies, and languages. The NAFC is committed to supporting regenerative and relational research that emphasizes mutual benefit, respect, and shared value between all parties involved.
Regenerative and relational research incorporates the following values as our foundations:
Foundation of Respect:
• The NAFC acknowledges and respects the autonomy of Friendship Centres and their Provincial/ Territorial Associations to engage in and conduct research that is relevant to their own selfdetermined priorities.
• The NAFC acknowledges and respects the diversity of Indigenous cultures and ways of knowing across the Friendship Centre Movement.
• The NAFC acknowledges and respects the value of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and the vital role that these knowledges play in Indigenous research.
Foundation of Reciprocity:
• The NAFC is committed to ensuring that all research relationships are grounded in the principle of reciprocal communication.
• The NAFC is committed to ensuring that all research concerning Friendship Centres is mutually beneficial to all parties involved in the project.
Foundation of Responsibility:
• The NAFC acknowledges its responsibility to the protection of Indigenous Knowledges, cultures, practices, and ways of knowing.
• The NAFC acknowledges that it has a responsibility to support and build upon the existing capacity of Friendship Centres and their Provincial/Territorial Associations (PTAs) to participate in, and lead, research.
Foundation of Relevance:
• The NAFC engages in research that furthers our strategic goals.
• The NAFC prioritizes research that can contribute to tangible, actionable outcomes that improve programs, services, and policy for urban Indigenous peoples.
• NAFC asserts that Indigenous research must account for the entire spectrum of lived urban Indigenous experiences and contexts, including both urban and rural.
NAFC’s Research Principles
NAFC acknowledges that regenerative and relational research must recognize that knowledge is not isolated but emerges through relationships, between people, the land, and all living beings, emphasizing accountability and interconnectedness.
Our research foundations are supported by a set of principles that articulate expectations for research involving Friendship Centres and urban Indigenous communities. Our principles distinguish between Indigenous research and allied approaches, emphasizing the importance of Indigenous leadership in all stages of the research process. We also offer additional guiding principles which explore how the First Nations principles of ownership, control, access, and possession (commonly known as OCAP® principles) apply specifically to urban Indigenous contexts.
Principle One: Community-Driven Research
Community-driven research is defined as research initiated and led by Indigenous communities, grounded in their knowledge systems and cultural protocols. It contrasts with traditional academic research, which often prioritizes institutional or governmental interests. NAFC emphasizes that community-driven research is essential for accurately understanding and addressing the needs of urban Indigenous communities.
Researchers engaging with Indigenous communities must prioritize long-term relationship building, ensuring that research is community-led and grounded in local priorities and protocols. Indigenous communities are recognized as the experts in their own experiences and must be involved in all stages of the research process, with the flexibility to determine their level of participation. Researchers must respect community autonomy, including the right to decline involvement, and adhere to cultural protocols and timelines. Consent must be ongoing and negotiated throughout the project. Data and stories shared by communities remain their intellectual property, and researchers act only as stewards. Communities also control how and when findings are disseminated.
Example of Practical Application of this Principle: To support this approach, funders and institutions must provide adequate resources, adjust timelines, and prioritize training to foster respectful, communitydriven research practices.
Principle Two: Building Community Capacity and Expertise
NAFC recognizes that Indigenous communities have long engaged in structured knowledge collection and governance. However, the current research environment often fails to recognize community-based expertise, privileging academic credentials over lived experience and traditional knowledge.
A regenerative and relational approach to research emphasizes the importance of equity, inclusion, and capacity-building within Indigenous communities. It calls on funders to revise eligibility criteria so that community-trained researchers can serve as principal investigators, ensuring that local expertise is recognized and empowered. By actively engaging community members in the research process, this model not only enhances the quality and relevance of research outcomes but also fosters selfdetermination and leadership within Indigenous communities.
Example of Practical Application of this Principle: Researchers are expected to acknowledge and utilize the existing skills within communities, integrating community-trained individuals as paid team members and co-investigators. Projects should also include structured training and educational opportunities to build research capacity, offering both paid roles and open learning resources.
Principle Three: Protecting Traditional/Indigenous Knowledges
Traditional/Indigenous knowledge is sacred, diverse, and often transmitted orally through Elders and Knowledge Keepers. It is rooted in ceremony, relationship, and community-defined protocols. NAFC is committed to protecting this knowledge and ensuring its appropriate use in research.
Researchers must engage with Traditional/Indigenous Knowledges in a respectful, ethical, and communityled manner. Communities retain full control over what knowledge is shared, who is recognized as a Knowledge Keeper or Elder, and how knowledge is stored, accessed, and used. Traditional knowledge remains the intellectual property of the community or Knowledge Keeper, and its use must be agreed
upon in advance and revisited throughout the research process. Researchers are required to follow cultural protocols, including ceremonies and honoraria, and must adhere to community-defined timelines for sharing and interpreting knowledge. Any secondary use of knowledge requires renewed consent, and contributions must be acknowledged as directed by the Knowledge Keeper. Institutions and funders are responsible for developing policies and training that validate Indigenous knowledge systems and ensure respectful engagement by researchers and peer reviewers.
Example of Practical Application of this Principle: Researchers should work with Friendship Centres to establish clear agreements before a project begins that outline how Traditional/Indigenous Knowledge will be shared, protected, and credited.
Principle Four: Respecting Indigenous Knowledges and Worldviews
The current research environment in Canada is dominated by Western methodologies and institutions, often marginalizing Indigenous approaches. NAFC calls for a systemic shift to create a more equitable and inclusive research culture.
This shift calls for a bold, systemic transformation that not only values Indigenous methodologies and protocols but also centers community priorities, cultural practices, and self-determination. Embracing Indigenous knowledge means acknowledging its validity as a standalone system and not as supplementary to Western science. It also means ensuring that research processes are respectful, reciprocal, and rooted in community engagement. This transformation is essential for creating a more ethical, equitable, and inclusive research environment that truly reflects the diversity of knowledge in our society.
Example of Practical Application of this Principle: Researchers and institutions should recognize Indigenous methodologies as valid research approaches, engage Elders and Knowledge Keepers in project design, and ensure research processes follow community protocols and priorities.
Principle Five: Understanding of the Uniqueness and Diversity of Urban Indigenous Communities
Understanding the uniqueness and diversity of urban Indigenous communities is essential to setting meaningful and respectful research priorities. These communities are not monolithic; they are composed of individuals from various Nations, each with distinct cultures, languages, histories, and experiences.
Urban Indigenous communities often navigate complex intersections of identity, displacement, and resilience within city and rural environments that may not reflect their traditional territories. As such, research involving urban Indigenous peoples must be grounded in an appreciation of this diversity and the specific contexts in which they live. Prioritizing this understanding ensures that research is relevant, respectful, and responsive to the lived realities of urban Indigenous communities, ultimately supporting their self-determined goals and strengthening the impact of research outcomes.
Example of Practical Application of this Principle: Researchers should partner with Friendship Centres from the very beginning of a project to identify community priorities and co-design research approaches. Together, they can plan culturally appropriate methods, timelines, and dissemination strategies that reflect the diversity and needs of the urban Indigenous community, ensuring research is respectful, reciprocal, responsible, and relevant to those it serves.
Additional Guiding Principles
Research with Friendship Centres and their Provincial/Territorial Associations (PTAs) must demonstrate that it is ethical, adhering to moral principles that respect cultural protocols, informed consent, and the dignity of all participants. It must be sovereignty-affirming, upholding Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination, including control over their knowledge, data, and cultural heritage. Together, these principles form the foundation of respectful, transformative, and decolonizing research practices.
OCAP® Principles
In urban Indigenous contexts, the First Nations OCAP® principles (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) remain vital but require nuanced application to reflect the diversity and complexity of urban Indigenous experiences.
• Ownership affirms that urban Indigenous individuals and collectives retain inherent rights over their cultural knowledge, stories, and data, even when they are not living on traditional territories.
• Control ensures that urban Indigenous communities have the authority to direct how research is conducted, including setting priorities and determining methodologies that reflect their unique realities.
• Access means that community members must be able to access data and findings that concern them, regardless of where the research is housed or who conducts it.
• Possession, while often more challenging in urban settings due to diversified governance structures, emphasizes the importance of physical stewardship of data by Indigenous organizations to safeguard its use and integrity.
Applying OCAP® in urban Indigenous contexts requires flexible, inclusive approaches that recognize the diversity of Indigenous identities and the need for community-specific governance models that uphold self-determination in all research processes.
Indigenous Versus Settler Ally Research
NAFC recognizes that research projects that align with the strategic priorities of its networked members may be led by Indigenous and/or non-Indigenous teams. It is important to distinguish between ‘Indigenous research’ and ‘settler ally research’ because there are differences related to who leads the research, whose knowledge systems are prioritized, and how power is distributed throughout the research process:
• Indigenous research is led by Indigenous Peoples for Indigenous Peoples and is grounded in Indigenous worldviews, methodologies, and community priorities. It centers Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing, and is often relational, land-based, and guided by cultural protocols. Indigenous research affirms sovereignty, self-determination, and the right of communities to control their own knowledge and data.
• Settler ally research, on the other hand, is conducted by non-Indigenous (settler) researchers who aim to support Indigenous communities through their work. While it can be respectful and collaborative, it still carries the risk of reinforcing colonial dynamics if not approached with humility, accountability, and a commitment to decolonizing research practices, such as adhering to the NAFC’s Research Framework. For settler ally research to attain this distinction requires that settler allies follow the leadership of Indigenous communities, share power, and ensure that the research benefits those communities directly.
Section 2: Our Commitment to Change
The NAFC recognizes that while Indigenous communities and their respective organizations have made great strides in reclaiming control over Indigenous research, many of these efforts continue to be either housed in, or controlled by, Western academic institutions. Too often, Indigenous research is undermined and undervalued by these institutions, which has served to perpetuate the existing research culture. Friendship Centres and their Provincial/Territorial Associations have decades of experience interacting with mainstream research institutions and being subject to mainstream research methods. The NAFC believes that in order to ensure that research involving Friendship Centres is community-driven and reflective of Indigenous ways of knowing, a fundamental shift in the dominant research landscape must occur. This will require systemic change within institutions that currently control research in Canada.
To support such a shift in the prevailing research culture, the NAFC is working to launch the NAFC’s Research Centre. The NAFC Research Centre will encompass leadership from across the Friendship Centre Movement who will work to:
• uphold the NAFC’s Research Framework;
• challenge status quo approaches to Indigenous research by championing community-driven research grounded in Indigenous knowledge, protocol, and processes;
• advise on the allocation of research funding for Friendship Centre-relevant research; and
• promote, preserve, and protect Traditional/Indigenous Knowledges and knowledge systems.
Promoting such a fundamental shift will require addressing the issues specific to existing research institutions including research funding policies, institutional research ethics, and research ethics boards. Change cannot be expected without addressing the changes required of structures which perpetuate the current research culture.
At the same time, areas of growth must also be pursued including capacity building that ensures mutual exchange of knowledge, recognizing the strengths already present in Indigenous communities while creating opportunities to enhance research skills. The NAFC’s Research Centre will identify pathways for growth that could support peer learning among Friendship Centres, leading examples of respectful and reciprocal academic partnerships, and sustainable funding models that prioritize community empowerment.
• Academic partnerships can provide access to research infrastructure, mentorship, and co-learning opportunities that respect Indigenous leadership and knowledge systems.
• Peer learning fosters knowledge exchange between Friendship Centres, allowing communities to share best practices, lessons learned, and culturally grounded research approaches.
• Sustainable funding models ensure that communities are not just participants in research but are resourced to lead, manage, and benefit from it, which supports long-term capacity and selfdetermination.
Through these efforts, the NAFC’s Research Centre will aim to transform research practices from those which often marginalize Indigenous knowledge into those that adhere to the NAFC’s Research Framework and demonstrate their commitment to challenging the status quo.
Section 3: Our
Toolkit
for
Implementation
This section equips Friendship Centres with practical tools to navigate research relationships in a way that is ethical, community-driven, and sovereignty-affirming.
Rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach, the NAFC’s Research Framework Toolkit is designed to be flexible and adaptable to the unique needs and capacities of each Friendship Centre. They support the development of respectful, reciprocal, and transparent research partnerships by offering templates, consent procedures, and data management guidance. Special attention is given to ongoing consent and the respectful engagement of Traditional Knowledge Holders, ensuring that research processes remain grounded in Indigenous values and community priorities throughout the research lifecycle.
Friendship Centres are encouraged to select the tools and templates that best support their role in a given research project. The templates in Appendix A can be adapted and amended to meet the needs of individual Friendship Centres and Provincial/Territorial Associations.
Toolkit: Roles and Responsibilities
While the NAFC’s Research Framework was developed to circumnavigate barriers to community-led, Friendship Centre-relevant research, we must also recognize that we cannot ignore the reality of current systems.
This section navigates the mainstream research landscape by outlining five different ways Friendship Centres may choose to become engaged in local research projects. By outlining the predominant roles common in research projects (e.g. research leaders, collaborators, advisors, supporters, or knowledgesharing partners), the NAFC’s Research Framework aims to support Friendship Centres in determining how they best align with potential projects.
Determining Roles and Responsibilities in Research
In many circumstances, Friendship Centres are invited to take part in research. The following information outlines key roles and responsibilities often attached to mainstream research projects, which any Friendship Centre may choose to take on:
1. Research Leaders
Also known as Principal Investigators (PIs) or Project Directors, these individuals:
• Provide the intellectual leadership and vision for the project.
• Are responsible for the design, execution, and management of the research.
• Handle budget oversight, reporting, and compliance with funding agency requirements.
• Often serve as the main point of contact with the funding body.
2. Collaborators
• Active contributors to the research, often bringing specialized expertise or access to resources.
• Involved in data collection, analysis, or co-authoring publications.
• May be from the same or different institutions and can be academic or non-academic.
• Typically listed in the grant and may receive funding for their contributions.
3. Advisors
• Provide strategic or technical guidance to the research team.
• Are not usually involved in day-to-day operations or data collection.
• May serve on advisory boards or committees.
• Help ensure the project stays aligned with broader goals or ethical standards.
4. Supporters
• Offer institutional, logistical, or moral support for the project.
• May include university departments, community organizations, or other project partners.
• Often provide letters of support, but are not directly involved in the research.
• Their role is to endorse the project and sometimes facilitate access to resources or networks.
5. Knowledge-Sharing Partners
• Focus on disseminating research findings to relevant audiences.
• May include community organizations, policy makers, or media outlets.
• Help translate research into practical applications or policy recommendations.
• Often co-develop knowledge mobilization strategies with the research team.
The following table is provided as a tool to assist Friendship Centres in locating their desired role in any proposed research project based on the responsibilities of each role. It is important to note that the work of determining roles and responsibilities on any research project is best done in a collaborative manner with various research project partners.
Role
Responsibilities
Research Leaders Provide intellectual leadership, manage project design, execution, and reporting
Collaborators
Advisors
Contribute expertise, participate in research activities, co-author publications
Offer strategic or technical guidance, serve on advisory boards
Supporters Provide institutional or moral support, endorse the project
Knowledge-Sharing Partners Disseminate findings, co-develop knowledge mobilization strategies
Involvement
High: responsible for all aspects of the project
Moderate to High: involved in execution and analysis
Low to Moderate: consultative role
Low: not directly involved in research activities
Moderate: involved in outreach and application
Must be affiliated with an eligible institution (e.g., university)
Usually affiliated with eligible institutions; may receive funding
No formal eligibility required; selected for expertise
No eligibility requirements; may provide letters of support
Can be academic or non-academic; no formal eligibility required
Toolkit: Screening and Assessment Tools
Research screening and assessment tools are essential for evaluating the potential of partnering in Indigenous research, as they help ensure that proposed projects align with community values, priorities, and ethical standards.
Screening and assessment provide an opportunity for Friendship Centres and their PTAs to consider a research project’s alignment with community priorities. Tools will also address contemporary needs such as evaluating research involving digital and AI technologies.
External Research Screening Tools provide a structured way to assess whether researchers are prepared to engage respectfully and meaningfully with Indigenous communities, including their readiness to follow cultural protocols, support community leadership, and uphold principles of mutual benefit and consent. It also empowers communities to make informed decisions about participation, safeguarding their autonomy and ensuring that research partnerships are built on trust, transparency, and shared goals.
A. Research Details Scope Start
Does it align with our national priorities/NAFC research statement? Does it have potential to impact at the national level?
Work with PTA to identify NAFC opportunities for engagement or a PTA or Friendship Centre has requested support from the NAFC for screening.
It is provincial or local in scope. Refer to appropriate PTA or direct Friendship Centre based on policy or bilateral agreements for screening.
Continue with screening
B. Pre-Screening Questions
Pre-Screening Questions can be used at the earliest stage of engagement, before entering into any formal agreements or commitments with external researchers. They are designed to help Friendship Centres and PTAs quickly determine whether a proposed project is aligned with community priorities, respectful of Indigenous ways of Knowing, and realistic given local capacity.
By asking these questions up front, Friendship Centres can identify potential concerns early, avoid onesided partnerships, and ensure that only proposals grounded in reciprocity, consent, and shared benefit move forward.
1) Project Detail
a. What is the title of the project
b. Project start date/Project end date
c. Project Funder?
d. Do you envision requiring either direct or in-kind contributions from NAFC/FC/PTA?
e. Name of Research Lead (Principal Investigator) and their affiliation (Institutional and Indigenous –if applicable)
f. Names and affiliations of other researchers/project partners involved & their experience carrying out research with Indigenous communities.
2) NAFC/FC/PTA Engagement and Proposed Role
a. Please explain how community and specifically NAFC, PTAs and/or Friendship Centre(s) will be involved in the research project.
b. Please describe any relationship building carried out to date that is relevant to the research project.
c. Please indicate the Proposed Role of NAFC/FC/PTA
C. Screening Questions
Screening Questions are designed to help Friendship Centres and PTAs think through their potential role in a research project and assess whether a proposed partnership aligns with their values, priorities, and capacity. These questions are not a checklist to pass or fail, but a guide to support informed decisionmaking and meaningful dialogue with research partners.
The role a Friendship Centre or PTA takes in a project may vary depending on community interest, capacity, and priorities. Roles can shift over time and as discussions with researchers evolve. A Friendship Centre or PTA may decide to take on a more significant, more limited, or entirely different role based on their capacity, interest, and priorities. These decisions should be made through respectful, collaborative negotiation.
The table below provides a matrix of guiding questions tailored to different roles that a Friendship Centre or PTA may choose to play in research.
Role
Research Leader/Co-Leader
Collaborator
Advisor
Supporter
Knowledge Sharing Partner
Question Matrix
All questions A – H
All questions A – E
All questions A – E
All questions A – E
All questions A – E
A) Research Goal/Objectives
I. Are the research goals objectives clearly stated?
II. Is the proposed project aligned with NAFC’s priorities?
III. Is this work already being done elsewhere? Is the work needed?
Criteria
Clarity of Research Goals/ Objectives
Guiding Questions Score (3-points)
Are the research goals and objectives clearly stated?
Alignment with NAFC Priorities Is the proposed project aligned with NAFC’s priorities?
Originality and Need
Is this work already being done elsewhere?
B) Impact
1 = Unclear
2 = Somewhat clear
3 = Very clear
1 = Not aligned
2 = Somewhat aligned
3 = Strongly aligned
1 = Redundant or low need
2 = Somewhat original or needed
3 = Highly original and clearly needed
I. How will the proposed research support meaningful outcomes for urban Indigenous communities?
II. How will the proposed research support meaningful outcomes for Friendship Centres?
III. How will the proposed research project contribute to existing Indigenous scholarship?
Criteria
Support for Urban Indigenous Communities
Support for Friendship Centres
Contribution to Indigenous Scholarship
Policy, Program, and Service Impact
Knowledge Mobilization
Guiding Questions
How will the proposed research support meaningful outcomes for urban Indigenous communities?
How will the proposed research support meaningful outcomes for Friendship Centres?
How will the proposed research project contribute to existing Indigenous scholarship?
Will the project result in improved policy, programs and/ or services?
How will the results be used? Will community-centred knowledge translation/ mobilization products be developed?
1 = Minimal impact
2 = Moderate impact
3 = Strong, meaningful impact
1 = No clear benefit
2 = Some benefit
3 = Significant benefit
= No contribution
2 = Some contribution
3 = Strong contribution
1 = No impact
2 = Some potential
3 = Clear and significant impact
1 = No plan
2 = Basic plan
3 = Comprehensive and community-focused plan
Community Sharing
Data Ownership and Access
Intellectual Property Rights
Authorship
Community Involvement in Knowledge Mobilization
How will results be shared with community?
How will data ownership and access be addressed?
Who will hold intellectual property rights over data and project outcomes/deliverables?
How will authorship be addressed?
How will community be involved in identifying and participating in opportunities for knowledge translation/mobilization?
C) Personal Investment/Situatedness/Relationships
1 = Not addressed
2 = General plan
3 = Clear, community-specific plan
1 = Not addressed
2 = Partially addressed
3 = Clearly and respectfully addressed
1 = Not defined
2 = Some clarity
3 = Clearly defined and community-respecting
1 = Not addressed
2 = Some consideration
3 = Clearly defined and inclusive
1 = No involvement
2 = Limited involvement
3 = Strong, active involvement
I. Why is this research topic of interest to you personally and/or professionally?zz
II. How will you personally and/or professionally benefit from undertaking this research project?
III. What steps have you taken to develop meaningful relationships with urban Indigenous peoples and/or Friendship Centres?
Criteria
Personal/Professional Interest
Guiding Questions Score (3-point scale)
Why is this research topic of interest to the researcher personally and/or professionally?
Personal/Professional Benefit
Existing Relationships
Formalized Agreements
Agreement Components
How will the researcher benefit from undertaking this research project?
Has the researcher worked with the community in the past or have personal connections?
Has the research relationship been formalized through a written agreement?
Does the agreement include data sharing, revenue sharing, knowledge mobilization, etc.?
1 = No clear interest
2 = Some interest
3 = Strong personal/professional connection
1 = No clear benefit
2 = Some benefit
3 = Clear and meaningful benefit
1 = No clear benefit
2 = Some benefit
3 = Clear and meaningful benefit
1 = No agreement
2 = Partial agreement
3 = Comprehensive agreement
1 = Few or no components
2 = Some components
3 = All key components included
D) Role of Indigenous Knowledge and Elders/Traditional Knowledge Holders
I. Please describe how this project engages with and respects Indigenous knowledges and perspectives?
II. Please describe the steps that have been taken or will be taken in order to ensure that the proposed research project will be respectful and inclusive of local/traditional/cultural knowledge and protocols.
Criteria
Engagement of Elders/ Knowledge Keepers
Guiding Questions Score (3-point scale)
How have Elders/Knowledge Keepers been engaged in the research planning process?
Identification Process Who was involved in the identification of Elders/ Knowledge Keepers?
Respect for Local Protocols What processes are in place to ensure that local protocols are being followed and how have they been followed to date?
E) Ethics
1 = No engagement
2 = Limited or informal engagement
3 = Meaningful and formal engagement
1 = No clear process
2 = Some community input
3 = Community-led identification
1 = No evidence of protocol adherence
2 = Some protocols acknowledged
3 = Clear adherence to protocols (e.g., tobacco/honorarium offered)
I. Please explain the process that will be undertaken to ensure that the proposed research will be conducted in an ethical manner. Please provide the name of the guidelines that will be used.
II. Please explain any other steps that you will undertake to ensure that the proposed research project is carried out in accordance with the values of ethical community-driven research.
III. Please list any potential ethical concerns that may arise during the research project and explain how such concerns will be addressed.
Adherence to Ethical Guidelines Has the researcher identified and committed to using recognized ethical guidelines (e.g., TCPS 2, OCAP, CARE)?
1 = No guidelines identified
2 = Some guidelines identified
3 = Clear and appropriate guidelines identified and explained
Community-Driven Ethical Values
How will the research be conducted in accordance with community values and ethical principles?
Identification and Management of Ethical Concerns
Have potential ethical concerns been identified and addressed?
F) Co-Development
1 = No mention of community values
2 = Some consideration of community values
3 = Strong alignment with community-driven ethical principles
1 = No concerns identified
2 = Some concerns identified with limited mitigation
3 = Clear identification and thoughtful mitigation strategies provided
I. Please explain how community and specifically NAFC, PTAs and/or Friendship Centre(s) have been involved in the research project to date. How do you intend to co-develop the research with Friendship Centres?
Criteria
Community Engagement in Research Design
Participant Identification Process
Inclusive Engagement of Specific Groups
Guiding Questions Score (3-point scale)
How were NAFC, PTAs, and/ or Friendship Centres engaged in research priority setting and methodology development?
What process was undertaken to identify appropriate participants for engagement?
What efforts were made to engage seniors, women, and youth (e.g., evening sessions, transportation, childcare, food)?
G) Additional Research Design Component
1 = Not engaged
2 = Somewhat engaged
3 = Fully engaged
1 = No clear process
2 = Some process described
3 = Clear and inclusive process
1 = No specific efforts
2 = Some efforts
3 = Comprehensive and thoughtful efforts
I. Please describe how the researcher(s) will achieve and ensure ongoing community consent and how will issues related to ongoing consent be addressed?
II. How is community defined for the purpose of the research project?
III. How will researchers provide regular updates to community?
IV. How will researchers adjust methodology or scope of a project if community consent is withdrawn?
V. Please explain what methodology will be used for this research and how it was developed: Provide details beyond stating that an Indigenous methodology will be used.
VI. Please explain how the proposed research will be funded:
a. Is it Tri-Agency funded?
i. If so, what was the purpose of the original call?
b. Is the government funding it?
i. If so which department and under which strategy initiative?
c. Is the private sector funding it?
i. If so, what are the ethical considerations? For example, is it being funded by a natural resource extraction company and what is their track record regarding environment, Indigenous and women’s rights etc.?
d. Does the funding agreement have a leveraging requirement?
e. What financial or in-kind contributions is the NAFC, PTA, or FC expected to make?
f. What arrangements have been made with NAFC, PTAs, or Friendship Centres to share financial resources?
g. Who will administer funds and what role will the NAFC, PTA, or FC play in the administration of research funds?
H) Capacity Building
I. Please describe how the project will seek to build upon existing capacity at the NAFC, PTA, or Friendship Centres to complete this project. For example, will the research partners be provided with training if they request it? Will they be provided financial resources to support employed research position(s)?
II. What are some long-term strategies to ensure capacity beyond the duration of the research project?
Criteria
Guiding Questions Score (3-point scale)
Training and Skill Development Will research partners be provided with training opportunities if requested?
1 = No training offered
2 = Limited or conditional training
3 = Comprehensive and accessible training provided
Financial Support for Research Roles
Utilization of Existing Capacity
Sustainability of Capacity Building
Will financial resources be provided to support employed research positions at NAFC, PTAs, or Friendship Centres?
Does the project build upon and enhance existing capacity at NAFC, PTAs, or Friendship Centres?
Are there strategies in place to ensure long-term capacity building beyond the project duration?
1 = No financial support
2 = Partial or limited support
3 = Full financial support for research roles
1 = No use of existing capacity
2 = Some use of existing capacity
3 = Strong integration and enhancement of existing capacity
1 = No sustainability plan
2 = Basic or short-term plan
3 = Clear and sustainable longterm strategy
Toolkit: Quick Reference Checklist
Once a project has passed the Pre-Screening and Screening stages, this checklist provides a clear, stepby-step overview of the research project lifecycle. It is designed as a practical tool to guide Friendship Centres and PTAs through each phase of the process: from planning and engagement to ethics, capacitybuilding, and knowledge sharing.
The checklist serves as a quick reference guide to ensure that research initiatives are aligned with the values of the Friendship Centre Movement, ethically grounded, and rooted in meaningful engagement with urban Indigenous communities throughout all phases of the research process.
1. Project Planning & Alignment
☐ Have the researchers clearly defined the research goals and objectives?
☐ Does the proposed project align with the priorities of your Friendship Centre, PTA, or NAFC?
☐ Is the research original and necessary, or is similar work already being done elsewhere?
☐ What role is your Centre being asked to play (e.g., Leader, Collaborator, Advisor)?
2� Community Engagement & Co-Development
☐ Were you engaged in setting the research priorities and developing the methodology?
☐ Were diverse community members (e.g., youth, women, Elders) included in the engagement process?
☐ Were supports like transportation, childcare, or food offered to facilitate participation?
☐ Have researchers acknowledged and planned for any engagement challenges?
3� Ethics & Protocols
☐ Have researchers identified the ethical guidelines they will follow (e.g., TCPS2, OCAP®, CARE)?
☐ Do they demonstrate an understanding of ethical, community-driven research values?
☐ Have they identified potential ethical concerns and how they will be addressed?
☐ Are local cultural protocols being respected (e.g., offering tobacco, honoraria)?
4�
Indigenous Knowledge & Relationships
☐ Have Elders or Knowledge Keepers been engaged in the planning process?
☐ Was your Centre involved in identifying appropriate Elders/Knowledge Holders?
☐ Are there clear processes in place to ensure local protocols are followed?
5� Capacity Building
☐ Will your Centre be offered training or support to participate in the research?
☐ Are financial resources available to support research roles within your Centre?
☐ Does the project build on your Centre’s existing capacity?
☐ Are there long-term strategies to sustain capacity beyond the project?
6� Knowledge Mobilization & Impact
☐ Will the research lead to improved policies, programs, or services for your community?
☐ Are there plans for community-centered knowledge sharing (e.g., reports, presentations)?
☐ Will your Centre have access to the data and findings?
☐ Are data ownership, intellectual property, and authorship clearly addressed?
7� Ongoing Consent & Communication
☐ Have researchers defined what ‘community’ means for this project?
☐ Is there a process for ongoing consent and regular updates?
☐ Have researchers explained how they will adjust the project if consent is withdrawn?
8� Funding & Administration
☐ Do you know who is funding the research and under what terms?
☐ Are your Centre’s financial or in-kind contributions clearly defined?
☐ Will your Centre have a role in administering or overseeing research funding?
Toolkit: Contemporary AI Considerations
As the research landscape evolves, Indigenous communities must be equipped to navigate emerging challenges and opportunities. This section provides guidance on contemporary issues such as digital ethics, virtual engagement, and environmental research. From the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to the impacts of climate change, these topics are increasingly shaping how research is conducted and how knowledge is shared.
By addressing these areas, the NAFC’s Research Framework empowers Friendship Centres and their Provincial/Territorial Associations to lead conversations about the ethical, cultural, and practical implications of new technologies and global issues. It ensures that research continues to reflect the lived realities, priorities, and sovereignty of urban Indigenous communities.
AI and Digital Research Ethics Statement (To be adapted by Friendship Centres/PTAs as necessary)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital technologies are increasingly integrated into research design, data analysis, and knowledge dissemination. While these tools offer potential benefits such as improved data processing, predictive modeling, and accessibility, they also raise significant ethical concerns, particularly for Indigenous communities.
NAFC affirms that any use of AI in research involving urban Indigenous communities must:
• Be transparent in its purpose, design, and limitations.
• Respect Indigenous data sovereignty, including OCAP® and CARE principles.
• Avoid reinforcing systemic biases or erasing Indigenous identities and knowledge systems.
• Be co-developed with communities, ensuring that AI tools serve community-defined goals.
• Include clear protocols for consent, data storage, and algorithmic accountability.
Friendship Centres are encouraged to critically assess the role of AI in proposed research projects and to advocate for Indigenous-led approaches to digital innovation that uphold cultural protocols, relational accountability, and community control.
