By History Department Indigenization Committee, University of Winnipeg[1]
In 2022, the Tri-Council[2] formed an Ad Hoc Working Group on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership (The Group) to gather information to inform a policy to address academic identity fraud. The Group conducted meetings and analysis rooted in ten questions about Indigenous Citizenship and Identity (14). The Group’s report, “What We Heard: A Report on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership,” released 31 January 2024, organizes findings into 6 themes: The need to move beyond self-identification; Indigenous self-determination and respecting Indigenous rights bearers; Avoiding additional barriers or harm; A focus on relationships and connection; Data privacy and protection of personal information; and Consequences for fraudulent claims. We reviewed and discussed the report as historians and have condensed our thoughts below.
From the outset, the Group’s goal was to develop “a common set of principles and guidelines to better understand and manage issues relating to Indigenous citizenship and membership, to ensure research funding opportunities through the three agencies intended for Indigenous researchers are being provided to them” (6). This phrasing discloses that the focus was not, as many had hoped, on fraud. Instead, it frames Indigenous citizenship as an “issue” to “manage.”
The report depicts identity fraud, unlike other forms of misconduct, as outside of the agency’s purview by stating that its policy will not “adjudicate identity” but only “affirm membership.” It is true that they can’t responsibly adjudicate identity, but they often use the difference between “affirmation” and “adjudication” to eliminate the agencies’ liability. If there is a case of identity fraud, the agencies can claim that they simply affirmed citizenship as determined by an Indigenous community. That community can then be blamed, accused of saying “yes” when they should have said “no.” Fixed, top-down procedures like this are fundamentally colonial because their sole function is to protect the institution. A genuine interest in protecting Indigenous communities is not represented in the report.
The Tri-Council and Universities must re-focus on fraud. It remains unclear to us how to make complaints and who is responsible for addressing them. When the Agencies and Universities obstinately avoid the issue of fraud, the work of gathering evidence, analysis, investigation, and discovery falls to journalists. However, there is an existing policy that covers academic fraud: the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021). The University of Winnipeg Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarship Policydraws from this document and lists 16 breaches of responsible conduct, four of which are particularly important for Indigenous Studies and related scholars:
1. Falsification, that is, the intentional misrepresentation through alteration, selective omission or manipulation of research design, data or citations.
2. Fabrication, that is, the invention or forging of research data or citations.
14. Providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information in a grant or award application or related document, such as a letter of support or progress report.
16. Listing of co-applicants, collaborators, or partners without their agreement.
The Responsible Conduct of Research and scholarship Procedures sets out the actions taken when a complaint has been made. It states that “it is the responsibility of all Community Members to report instances of alleged Breaches of this Policy.” Reports are made to the VP Research and Innovation in writing and signed by the complainant. But this policy has rarely been used, and, we understand, has never been used to formally investigate identity fraud. We recommend that the Tri-Agency and Canadian universities spell out to all funded researchers the seriousness of compliance and what to do in the event of a breach, including how to make and intake allegations of non-compliance. We also recommend that research officers follow these procedures when complaints of misconduct are made, either to the University or directly to the Tri-Council, in the form of merit review, correspondence, or otherwise.
Structural barriers within the Tri-Agency funding process are not addressed in this document, but must be changed if we are to move toward better equity and a better understanding of Indigenous communities and Indigenous research. We found the document frustrating in its lack of self-reflection about its own place in settler-colonial knowledge (re)production. Its gestures to history are vague and external only – to the Sixties Scoop, policies of disenfranchisement, colonial regulation. But SSHRC was founded, influenced, and awards merit by this very context. The Massy Commission, a founding document for SSHRC, sought to make recommendations that would “develop Canada’s Indigenous cultural and intellectual life.” The roots of SSHRC then, follow the definition of settler colonialism: to replace Indigenous with settler, making the settler indigenous. Where does this leave Indigenous people and Indigenous research?
Today, applications for SSHRC funding are cumbersome and time consuming. Often, only those who are already funded have the time, energy, and status to succeed in further competitions. Standardized forms of academic writing and terminology exclude those whose approaches, training, objectives, and expression don’t conform. SSHRC’s exclusion of Indigenous Studies from its drop-down list of research fields is just one sign of this profoundly exclusionary structure. Another sign is its ill-defined area of “Indigenous research” that conflates and excludes a range of methodologies and ethical frameworks as “topics involving Indigenous people.” This category fails to accommodate many Indigenous scholars whose work comes from, engages with, and impacts Indigenous peoples.
Fraud has been of leading importance for over a decade, and Universities and the Tri-Agency have failed to address Indigenous and other scholars’ concerns. Tri-Council funds are public money, including Indigenous public money. The Tri-Council’s evasion of its own colonial relations with Indigenous people helps to explain its tepid response to issue of Indigenous identity fraud. But these are not matters of Indigeneity, but rather of academic honesty, integrity, and ethics. When a scholar has lied, failed to confirm their background, or taken advantage of opportunities reserved for Indigenous people, they are stealing. When the Tri-Agency refuses to take responsibility and wastes the time, talent, and resources of Indigenous scholars, that is stealing as well.
[1] Initiated in 2016, the Indigenization/Decolonization Committee documents the Department’s program of Indigenous Course Requirement courses, runs a History ICR essay contest, keeps the department informed and engaged on scholarly work in the field of Indigenous history, and a range of other curriculum, scholarly, and university service. Current members are Aileen Friesen, Leah Kuragano, Karen Froman, Cathy Mattes, and Mary Jane Logan McCallum.
[2] The Tri-Council refers to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies – the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These councils, founded in 2000, 1978 and 1977 respectively, receive public funds annually from parliamentary appropriation and distribute these funds through various grant programs.
[1] Initiated in 2016, the Indigenization/Decolonization Committee documents the Department’s program of Indigenous Course Requirement courses, runs a History ICR essay contest, keeps the department informed and engaged on scholarly work in the field of Indigenous history, and a range of other curriculum, scholarly, and university service. Current members are Aileen Friesen, Leah Kuragano, Karen Froman, Cathy Mattes, and Mary Jane Logan McCallum.