1 Introduction
This chapter considers the ethics of research on Sami education. The article deals with the starting points of research in the Sami educational context, which consists of many potentially sensitive aspects. As a backdrop, we describe the different positions and situations of the Sami in their respective state contexts, in relation to research ethics. Further, we discuss how reflections on research ethics cover the entire research process, from planning, empirical work, community contact and participation, to writing and sharing. In addition, the article considers the kind of critical requirements that appear in research in the context of Indigenous education. The research ethics debate in the education field on Sami matters is important, as there are special conditions for research, depending on the diverse histories and situations of Indigenous peoples. For example, involving ethnic groups and minorities in research calls for specific ethical considerations that must be addressed.
The fact that the Sami live in four countries â Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia â adds to the unique perspectives on the ethics of Sami educational research. Each country has its own legal system as well as its own educational system, and particular regulations around ethical codes and practices. Research related to the Sami must consider the regulations and ethical guidelines of different countries. It must also consider the mainstream general
The background of so-called general research ethics development stems from the international work to develop a code of ethics for research (for example, the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki) (Vrhovac, 2004). In contrast, research ethics to protect Indigenous knowledge and heritage focus on consciousness raising among the Indigenous peoples globally (Battiste, 2007/2016). We can see that more detailed texts have started to criticise research conducted on the Sami since the 1970s (cf. Keskitalo A. I., 1976/1994).
In this chapter, we will discuss ethics in research on Indigenous education from within the contexts of Finland, Sweden and Norway. The purpose and perspectives are framed by the special ethical demands, from the point of view of general research ethics in educational research, to the specific context, for example, of Indigenous and Sami research with vulnerable young children in ethnic groups (framed by the EU data security more specifically). Before presenting country-specific questions, general perspectives and knowledge on Indigenous research ethics, including an overview of previous research, will be given to frame the discussion. This kind of research has been already done to some extent, but more systematic and in-depth research should still be conducted, which we are also contributing to with this chapter. The chapter is designed to discuss the educational research ethics in the context of Sami educational research, serving the needs of students and researchers doing practical research in the field. In this chapter we focus on the Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian contexts, but would like to underline that the Russian Sami context needs to be added to the picture, which we hope to be able to do in the future.
2 Background
In recent years, the mainstream research agendas in the Nordic national legislation have increasingly been pushing towards the necessity for research to be relevant for the surrounding society (Regeringens proposition 2016/17: 50; Regeringens proposition 2020/21: 60; Ministry of Education and Research, 2019; Opetus-ja kulttuuriministeriö, 2015). For the field of educational research, this has led to an increased interest in research projects that focus on collaborative approaches between educational practitioners and researchers, with the ambition of producing scientific knowledge that is anchored and relevant for the schools, teachers and pupils as well as for the scientific community (for
The conversation about research ethics has been, and still is, ongoing all over the world. Although making use of similar definitions and discussing the same set of challenges, the structures that have been developed and implemented, to ensure that research processes are ethical, differ between different national contexts and subject areas. The seemingly similar but often different approaches to ethics in practice imply that what is ethical for some is sometimes not understood to be so for others. Thus, defining what is ethical frequently differs depending on the historical and societal contexts (Gallagher et al., 2016; Nygård & Saus, 2016).
During the past decade, research ethics have been increasingly highlighted in Sami research. This follows international developments and is strongly influenced by the international discourses around Indigenous methodologies, decolonisation, and indigenisation. By pointing out the common Indigenous experience of being âresearched onâ, the international Indigenous research community has strived to raise awareness about how ethical principles for Indigenous research should preferably be developed, to function for the specific cultural context in which they are to be used. One of the main points in the different guidelines, protocols, or regulations that focus specifically on Indigenous research is that they depart from the specific values and needs that the Indigenous community expresses. When compared to generally established ethical guidelines, Indigenous understandings of ethics in research can sometimes differ in substantial ways. Concepts such as respect, reciprocity, cultural safety and equality are some of the terms that are used to frame ethical discussions from Indigenous points of view. However, these concepts are not generally included in the overall mainstream research ethical discourse. Adding to this is the Indigenous motivation to include not only the individual
Regarding Sami research in Sápmi, the conversations around ethical issues have been present since the mid-1970s, and have had different impacts, depending on historical contexts and nation-based development. As a pioneer in the field, Alf Isak Keskitalo (1976/1994) raised several theoretical and methodological issues in Sami research, calling for power relations within the academic context to be scrutinised and challenged (Drugge, 2022; Porsanger & Seurujärvi-Kari, 2021). The political development around ethics in Sami research has taken diverse directions and forms in the different countries in Sápmi, and the internal discussion within the Sami research community has contributed to pushing the issue forward through discussions, workshops, publications and conferences focusing specifically on ethics. Norway stands out as the country in which the ethical discussion has contributed to political change, as evidenced by the establishment of national guidelines available for Sami health research (Stordahl et al., 2015). In Sweden, the conversation around research ethics started off on a broader level during the beginning of the 2000s, leading up to a number of seminars, workshops and publications, highlighting the theme from different angles. Recently, the Sami Parliament in Sweden has adopted a research policy strategy to guide Sami research, including several ethical standpoints for researchers (Drugge, 2022). Additionally, in Finland, specific guidelines for Sami research have already been developed and established (Heikkilä et al., 2021). In all the Nordic countries in Sápmi, research on Indigenous matters is primarily required to connect to national legislation, which has implications for research ethics, as the legislation differs among the national contexts (cf. Drugge, 2022). In addition to the country-based approaches mentioned, the Sami Council (the pan-Sami political organisation with a collaboration across state borders) has initiated a bigger project, working towards the establishment of ethical guidelines for research related to Sami communities. Former joint effort towards creating joint Nordic research ethics standards was not finished, as the working group released a press release in 2016 (cf. Heikkilä, 2016). It seems that country-based regulations, practices and standards for the Nordic region are taking more time due to the complexities involved.
There are also international regulations that affect and concern Sami research. Based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 (UN, 2007), Indigenous people have the right to self-determination, and the right to develop their communities, based on their habits and cultural norms and codes. There are also consequences for research ethics, for example, the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) has applied ideas of Indigenous research ethics. Principles highlight, among others, the authority and presence of Indigenous communities and the Indigenous knowledge system (Sámi allaskuvla, 2021).
3 Country-Based Presentations
In the following section, we will present country-based reflections on research ethics in Sami educational settings. It is meaningful to explain practices at a more general level (meaning country-specific legislation and guidelines), before exploring the practical solutions. Cases and reflections from specific projects are included.
3.1 Finland
In Finland, research is guided by the University Act (Yliopistolaki 24.7.2009/ 558), which mandates that research at Finnish universities adhere to high
Each university in Finland has its own ethics board for reviewing research proposals when required by funding bodies or the nature of the research. The ethical principles and review processes are designed to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (2016) and other relevant legislation, such as the Constitution of Finland (1999/731), the University Act and other educational institutional acts. The principles emphasised by TENK include respect for human dignity, cultural heritage and biodiversity. These principles ensure that research does not cause significant harm to participants or communities (TENK, 2019).
An ethical review is necessary for research involving special categories of personal data, such as racial or ethnic origin, among others. These reviews help prevent reinforcing stereotypes, discrimination and other harms, ensuring that research is conducted respectfully and equitably. Additionally, an ethical review should be conducted if participation deviates from the principle of informed consent, when the focus is on minors under 15 years without parental consent, or when the research can harm participants in any way (TENK, 2019). There are available experiences on how researchers have resolved ethical questions, and they highlight the importance of collaborating with every participant, including on a societal level if possible (cf. Helander et al., 2022a; Keskitalo P. & Linkola-Aikio, 2022; Linkola & Keskitalo, 2016).
3.2 Sweden
In Sweden, there are also consequences arising from the recent EU data protection regulation. All researchers need to take into account EU legislation around research ethics when planning and conducting research, regardless of what subject area is in focus (General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679, 2016; âLag (2003/460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor Stockholm: Regeringskansliet; 2015â). In Sweden, ascertaining whether a research project needs to undergo an ethical review depends on whether the project includes the processing of sensitive personal data, as defined by the GDPR. Research that includes the processing of sensitive personal data, for instance, where information on individualsâ Sami ethnicity is revealed, must undergo an ethics review (Drugge, 2022, Ethical Review Act, Lag 2003/460, The Swedish Ethical Review Authority).
There exist no specific guidelines formulated by national legislation for research focusing specifically on Sami issues. Recently, the Sami Parliament in
The discussion on research ethics in Sami research is one that has become increasingly apparent during the last decade, demonstrated by a number of workshops, seminars and publications that have highlighted ethical issues (Drugge, 2022). Leaning on international development, and inspired by conversations in other Indigenous research contexts, researchers on the Swedish side of Sápmi have increasingly included ethical discussions as an integral part of their work. However, the discussions are frequently held on a theoretical level, and the transformation from theory to practice is not that easy to accomplish (Drugge, 2022; Nilsson, 2021).
With the ambition to achieve increased uniformity and efficiency, the ethics review process in Sweden was recently re-organised. Since 2019, it has been conducted within the framework of the new unanimity authority, the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The Authority consists of regional departments that are located at six different universities in Sweden and consists of two different units: one with a medical focus, and the other for remaining areas of research. In many ways, the new organisation reflects the former in terms of the actual vetting process before 2019, but a significant change concerns the distribution of projects to handle. What was previously a regional responsibility â to handle the research projects at the home university â is now the opposite. This implies that research projects that have been submitted for ethical review are distributed randomly to any one of the six different regional boards, except the one located in their own region. The ambition has been to prevent situations of conflict of interest that are more likely to be present in the same geographical area. A more even distribution of cases and the prevention of possible regional differences in the review processes were other issues that led to this organisational change (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2016). Although with the
In terms of educational research involving schools in Sweden, the Ethical Review Authority states that the main researcher of a project is responsible for ensuring that the collaborative partners in schools have knowledge of research ethics, and have a general understanding of ethical standpoints, expressed through legislations around research processes. It is also the responsibility of the researcher to determine whether a research project needs to undergo ethical vetting, based on the principles of sensitive data stated in the GDPR and the national Ethical Review Act (Lag 2003/460, The Swedish Ethical Review Authority).
3.3 Norway
In Norway, all higher education and research is regulated by the University and University Colleges Act, where § 1â5 emphasises that the activities, including research, shall be conducted in accordance with recognised scientific and ethical principles (Universitets- og høgskoleloven, 2005). Recognised within ethical research, Sami educational research is juridically regulated by the Research Ethics Act (Forskningsetikkloven, 2017). This law regulates all researchers and research in Norway, regardless of the research field. The European GDPR (see above) is also applicable in Norwegian law (Personopplysningsloven, 2018). The Research Ethics Act requires national research ethics committees for all research disciplines. Currently, there are three committees: Medical and Health, Science and Technology, Social Sciences and Humanities (including a separate committee for research on human remains). In addition, there is a commission for the investigation of research misconduct. These committees are responsible for both general national guidelines for research ethics for all fields of research and subject-specific guidelines. The only research field where we find a specific law is within health research (Helseforskningsloven, 2008). In this field, there is both a national committee and a system of independent regional committees for medical and health research.
The main picture is that research ethics in Norway formally consist of general and overarching laws and regulations that, to a limited degree, are tailored towards research on topics related to Sami education. It is, firstly, the Social Sciences and Humanities guidelines that are the most relevant for research on Sami education. In 2021, a new version was launched (NESH, 2021), and these guidelines mention Indigenous peoples specifically in paragraph 31,
One of the cornerstones of Norwegian research ethics is the protection of personal data. All researchers collecting personal data from people are obliged to report the project to the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD). This notification is an ethical approval, where the NSDâs role is to safeguard the research participantsâ privacy. An important part of the ethical approval is to describe how the project is going to deal with informed consent. This includes both tailoring the information about the research project and making sure the participants know what they give consent to. In addition, the researcher must explain if the research concerns âspecial categories of personal dataâ. One of the special categories is information relating to âracial or ethnical originâ. In Norway, this includes Indigenous people (Sami), national minorities (Kven, Rom, Romani, Jews and Forrest Finns), and migrants born outside Norway to parents who are also born abroad. To simplify, the main goal of defining ethnicity as a special category of personal data is connected to the history of research, where there were examples of abuses of power and unethical research towards disadvantaged and vulnerable groups (cf. NESH, 2021, section 31). Therefore, todayâs ethical guidelines highlight the researcherâs special responsibility to conduct research that is not harmful.
Within Sami health research, a set of ethical guidelines has been developed. These guidelines are the result of a project initiated by the Sami Parliament and led by the Centre for Sami Health Research at UiT The Arctic University of Norway, and they are now part of a formal structure. The Sami Parliament states that the guidelines are part of the process of ensuring that Sami health research is anchored in Indigenous peoplesâ rights to self-determination. The formal aspect of this is the need to apply for permission to do research on matters related to Sami health. The Sami Parliament has issued a committee that has the authority to evaluate applications and to express a collective Sami consent (Sámediggi, 2019). Educational research still does not have a similar arrangement. However, some of the principles of these ethical guidelines are clearly relevant and recognisable, as they emphasise recognition of the Sami as an Indigenous people and respect for Sami integrity: âThe relations between Sami communities/informants and scholars with their institutions must be coined by respect, reciprocity, equity, responsibility, cultural safety, and Sami self-determination in any research projectâ (sametinget.no). On a general level, it is easy to see a similarity to the kind of ethical research guidelines expressed and followed in educational research also.
4 Reflections
This chapter is based on a descriptive study, to present and give basis to compare three different national systems of research ethics for Sami educational research. Here, these descriptions reflect on some of the pressing questions that emerge from these cases. As we show, the space for Indigenous perspectives in research ethics varies from country to country, but there are also some commonalities. First, the national laws and guidelines provide frameworks on how to conduct educational research, while the EU data security law mandates certain requirements for ethics design, ethical considerations and conducting research, especially in research with Indigenous groups and minors with certain starting points and contexts. Based on our three cases and experiences, research funders, and even publication channels, may have certain requirements for research ethics. As the three cases show, beyond the formalities, research ethics in Sami educational research also includes informal and project-specific decisions about research ethics. On this basis, the question is to what extent the Sami right to self-determination is part of the formal regulations and guidelines, and that the Sami themselves are represented in research ethics committees. Are they listened to in cases when official committees and services discuss and approve research ethics plans in research projects on Sami education? Who is to decide which values Sami educational research projects can or should use in developing research ethics that centres on Sami perspectives? These questions also point to the need to address the relationship between the right to Sami self-determination in research and all researchersâ academic freedom.
There are some critical questions that can and should be raised, at least in part following Debashish Munshiâs et al. questions (2010): What is in it for the Sami people or for Sami teachers, families and children? Who benefits from the research done? This also includes considering whether the research may potentially be harmful on any level. When is research so harmful that it is not ethically correct to be conducted? We know that loading educational institutions and their employees and children with the research tasks is problematic, and lack of time and resources might be a reason for not granting access to researchers. In many Indigenous contexts, there is talk of research overload or research fatigue. How can research institutions ensure or work towards a situation where research projects do not wear communities or people out?
There is an obvious relationship between educational research as a mainstream field of research and Indigenous research. As the three national cases show, the ethics aspect of this relationship is influenced by continuous developments in the overarching regulations and practices that are typically based on the perspectives of the majority. One area of importance in the process of indigenising research ethics is related to data, for instance, questions related to data ownership, data management and recent developments in the politics of open data. It is a complicated issue to what extent data of ethnic groupsâ children, adolescents, teachers and parents can be shared as open data. Here, a balance between supporting the reuse of data, and making the voices of the Sami heard on the one hand, and avoiding harmful reuse and misinterpretations on the other, must be a concern. In the light of the different ethical standards that embrace the field of Sami research, there is a need to problematise the definition of the community/collective when discussed in terms of Sami society.
In the Socially Innovative Interventions to Foster and to Advance Young Childrenâs Inclusion and Agency in Society through Voices and Story research project, collaboration was conducted with teachers, parents, school children, school leaders and education organisers. The project illustrates that change in school culture and teaching can be achieved through extensive collaboration, especially when teachers collaborate with university researchers to create a shared space for teaching development (cf. Helander et al., 2023).
As described in this text, ethical guidelines for Indigenous research often challenge the focus on the individual, calling for a greater understanding of the
In educational research in general, researchers navigate in a highly diverse academic context, where the research community, as well as the education sector, are both important in shaping and framing research relevant to society. In Sami educational research, there are more layers that intersect in all projects. It is not only the local and nation-state levels that are relevant. As Sami researchers need to collaborate across borders, a more overarching Sami perspective is relevant for developing high-quality research ethics. In order to achieve this, we may need to be able to find an arrangement that emphasises a practical and institutional understanding of what such an overarching Sami perspective may be. This would require looking beyond Sami diversity and multivocality, at the same time as it becomes an integral part.
Beyond the topic of research ethics, there has been a lot of discussion in Finland, Sweden, and Norway about Sami identity and the boundaries and/or outreach of Sami identity. This also has implications for the understanding of Sami research and research ethics. For research ethics committees and/or bodies of different kinds, it is not necessarily easy to decide how they are put together â and to figure out who should decide it. There is no singular Sami institution who âownsâ the right to define and set the boundaries for
An occurring dilemma still remains: Should the work on Sami research ethics primarily be done within and in order to improve the respective national systems of research ethics, or should it primarily be done through the development and articulation of a cross-state solution and arrangement within outspoken Sami channels? We argue that there is a need for both, and that one should benefit the other. The making of a Sami system of its own can clearly be seen through the lenses of self-determination. At the same time, as not all research on Sami-related topics is done through explicitly defined Sami projects, we cannot remove ourselves from the mainstream system.
Finally, as part of a global network of Indigenous scholars, Sami educational research is also inspired by and in dialogue with Indigenous research codes of conduct around the world. The question is how these global perspectives on Indigenous research ethics can be put into practice in Sápmi. In that sense, the ethics of writing seems to be a relevant question for further discussion. The question of competency building in the Indigenous society is also a good question. Who is going to benefit and learn? How will the research participants benefit and learn? Questions of Indigenous involvement in research projects and delivering knowledge in Indigenous communities are highly relevant ethical considerations. The urgent question is also from where the research needs arise.
5 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have followed the steps to discuss the construction of Sami educational research ethics with its plethora of regulations and ethical codes. There are plenty of decisions to make and contemplate before commencing data gathering, if the research consists of such starting points. This chapter is an attempt to establish and reflect upon commonalities and differences in a comparative perspective in the countries with Sami people, Finland, Norway and Sweden. We have observed that overall, an Indigenous perspective is downplayed rather than emphasised.
The starting point for Sami research ethics is the right to self-determination. Regarding this, national guidelines seem to carry many unresolved questions. For example, open data is one issue and is not yet sufficiently problematised.
This chapter has provided two foci: an overview of the system and challenges in Sami research ethics across countries, and its implications for educational research. There are other nuances and aspects in Indigenous research ethics that call for more debate and research, and these need to be explored more in the future. These are wider research paradigm-connected and methodological aspects. Thus, further comparative studies may be needed to highlight the intrinsic challenges that exist in the environment of research in Indigenous contexts, to both ensure fairness and proper representation, but also to fine tune understanding of research ethics, to ensure optimal contribution of research to the field of education.
References
Battiste, M. (2016). Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical futures in qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge (pp. 111â132). New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 2007)
Drugge, A. L. (2016). How can we do it right? Ethical uncertainty in Swedish Sami research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(4), 263â279.
Drugge, A.-L. (2022). Sámi research ethics under construction. In S. Valkonen, A. Aikio, S. Alakorva, & S. M. Magga (Eds.), The Sámi world (pp. 465â478). London: Routledge.
Forskningsetikkloven. (2017). Lov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid [Act on the Organisation of research ethics committees] (LOV-2017-04-28-23). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2017-04-28-23
Gallagher, B., Berman, A. H., Bieganski, J., Jones, A. D., Foca, L., Raikes, B., Schiratzki, J., Urban, M., & Ullman, S. (2016). National human research ethics: A preliminary comparative case study of Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Ethics & Behavior, 26(7), 586â606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1096207
General Data Protection Regulation. (EU 2016/679) Regulation, G.D.P.R (2016). Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016. Official Journal of the European Union.
Green, J. (2011). âDonât tell us who we are (not): Reflections on Métis identity. Aboriginal Policy Studies, 1(2), 166â170.
Heikkilä, L. (2016). Teema: Saamentutkimukselle luodaan yhteispohjoismaisia eettisiä ohjeita [Theme: Joint Nordic ethical guidelines are being created for Sami research]. Lapin yliopisto. https://www.ulapland.fi/news/Teema-Saamentutkimukselle-luodaan-yhteispohjoismaisia-eettisia-ohjeita-/yj1xyh5n/0e38fbad-a2b3-4d75-81a3-7d8fd02d628f
Heikkilä, L., Kuokkanen, R., Lehtola, V. P., Magga, P., Magga, S. M., Näkkäläjärvi, J., & Virtanen, P. K. (2024). Saamelaisia koskevan tutkimuksen eettiset ohjeet Suomessa= Sámiide guoski dutkama ehtalaš rávvagat Suomas= Sämmilijd kyeskee tutkâmeettisiih ravvuuh Suomâst= Säʹmmlaid kuõskki tuʹtǩǩummuž eettla vuäʹppõõzz Lääʹddjânnmest= Ethical guidelines for research involving the Sámi people in Finland. Lapin yliopisto, Helsingin yliopisto, Giellagas Institute, University of Oulu, Sámediggi, Lapin kulttuurirahasto ja Saamelaisalueen koulutuskeskus. https://oulurepo.oulu.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/50115/nbnfioulu-202405294076.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Helander, H., Keskitalo, P., & Turunen, T. (2023). Saami language online education outside the Saami homeland: New pathways to social justice. In M. Thrupp, P. Seppänen, J. Kauko, & S. Kosunen (Eds.), Finlandâs famous education system: Unvarnished insights into Finnish schooling (pp. 303â318). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5_19
Helander, H., Linkola-Aikio, I.-A., Keskitalo, P., & Turunen, T. (2022). Saamelaisia koskevan kasvatus- ja koulutustutkimuksen eettisiä kysymyksiä [Ethical issues in education and educational research concerning Sami people]. Kasvatus, 53(4), 423â428. https://doi.org/10.33348/kvt.122493
Helseforskningsloven. (2008). Lov om medisinsk og helsefaglig forskning [Act on medical and health research] (LOV-2008-06-20-44). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-20-44
Keskitalo, A. I. (1994). Research as an inter-ethnic relation. DieÄut, 7. Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. (Original work published 1976)
Keskitalo, P., & Linkola-Aikio, I.-A. (2022). Sámi pedagogalaÅ¡ dutkamuÅ¡ ja dutkanetihkka [Sami educational research and research ethics]. Dutkansearvvi dieÄalaÅ¡ áigeÄála, 6(2), 48â68. https://www.dutkansearvi.fi/volume-6-issue-2-2022-ps/
Lag. (2003/460). Om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [On ethical review of research involving humans]. Utbildningsdepartementet.
Linkola, I. A., & Keskitalo, P. (2016). Keskustelua saamelaispedagogiikan tutkimuksen etiikasta [Discussion on the ethics of Sami pedagogy research]. Agon, 2, 4â14.
Milkaite, I. (2021). A childrenâs rights perspective on privacy and data protection in the digital age: a critical and forward-looking analysis of the EU General Data Protection Regulation and its implementation with respect to children and youth [Doctoral dissertation]. Ghent University.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Long-term plan for research and higher education 2019â2028 (Meld. St. 4, 2018â2019). https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-4-20182019/id2614131/
Munshi, D., Broadfoot, K. J., & Smith, L. T. (2010). Decolonizing communication ethics. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.) Handbook of communication ethics. Routledge Handbooks Online.
NESH. (2021). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora. Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora [Research ethics guidelines for social sciences and humanities. The national committee for research ethics in the social sciences and the humanities]. Oslo: NESH. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum-sam/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer-for-samfunnsvitenskap-og-humaniora/
Nihlfors, E. (2020). Respekt för varandras kunskaper [Respect for each otherâs knowledge]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 25(4), 112â116.
Nilsson, R. (2021). Att bearkadidh: Om samiskt självbestämmande och samisk självkonstituering [To cope: On Sami self-determination and Sami self-contruction] [Doctoral dissertation]. Stockholms universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.
NygÃ¥rd, R. H., & Saus, M. (2016). Emphasizing indigenous communities in social work research ethics. International Social Work, 59(5), 666â678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872816646815
Nyyssönen, J. (2007). âEverybody recognized that we were not whiteâ. Sami identity politics in Finland, 1945â1990 [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Tromsø, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of History. https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/1147/thesis.pdf
Olsen, T. A., & Sollid, H. (Eds.). (2022). Indigenising education and citizenship. Perspectives on policies and practices from Sápmi and beyond. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215053417-2022
Opetus-ja kulttuuriministeriö. (2015). Vastuullinen ja vaikuttava. Tulokulmia korkeakoulujen yhteiskunnalliseen vaikuttavuuteen [Responsible and impactful. Approaches to the societal impact of higher education]. Opetus-ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2015: 13. Helsinki.
Personopplysningsloven. (2018). Lov om behandling av personopplysninger [Personal Data Act] (LOV-2018-06-15-38). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-38
Porsanger, J., & Seurujärvi-Kari, I. (2021). Sámi dutkama máttut: The forerunners of Sámi methodological thinking. In P. Virtanen, P. Keskitalo, & T. Olsen (Eds.), Indigenous research methodologies in Sámi and global contexts (pp. 33â64). Leiden and Boston: Brill Sense. https://brill.edhh.ma/display/title/56605?contents=toc-116020
Regeringens proposition. (2016/17: 50). Kunskap i samverkan â för samhällets utmaningar och stärkt konkurrenskraft [Knowledge in collaboration â for societal changes and strengthened competitiveness]. Stockholm. https://www.regeringen.se/4adad0/contentassets/72faaf7629a845af9b30fde1ef6b5067/kunskap-i-samverkan--for-samhallets-utmaningar-och-starkt-konkurrenskraft-prop.-20161750.pdf
Regeringens proposition. (2020/21: 60). Forskning, frihet, framtid â kunskap och innovation för Sverige [Research, freedom, future â knowledge and innovation for Sweden]. Stockholm. https://www.regeringen.se/4af915/contentassets/da8732af87a14b689658dadcfb2d3777/forskning-frihet-framtid--kunskap-och-innovation-for-sverige.pdf
Sámediggi. (2019). Etiske retningslinjer for samisk helseforskning [Ethical guidelines for Sami health research]. Karasjok. https://sametinget.no/_f/p1/iab4f8a7f-1c05-4f9f-a5e2-1d4f6196671d/etiske-retningslinjer-for-samisk-helseforskning-ny.pdf
Sametinget, Sámi Parliament in Sweden. (2021). Forskningspolitisk strategi, Dnr 1.3.5-2020-1169 [Research policy strategy, Ref. No. 1.3.5-2020-1169]. Kiruna. https://www.sametinget.se/156606
Sámi allaskuvla. (2021). Dutkanetihkka [Research ethics]. Guovdageaidnu. https://samas.no/en/node/284
Smith, L. T. (2006). Researching in the margins issues for MÄori researchers a discussion paper. Alternative: An International Journal on Indigenous Peoples, 2(1), 4â27. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718010600200101
Stordahl, V., Tørres, G., Møllersen, S., & Eira-à hren, I. M. (2015). Ethical guidelines for Sami research: The issue that disappeared from the Norwegian Sami Parliamentâs agenda? International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 74(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v74.27024
TENK. (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 3/2019. Helsinki: Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf
The Constitution of Finland. (1999/731). https://publicofficialsfinancialdisclosure.worldbank.org/sites/fdl/files/assets/law-library-files/Finland_Constitution_2000_en.pdf
The Norwegian National Ethics Committees. (2019). Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, humanities, saw and theology. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-the-social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/
The Swedish Ethical Review Authority. https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/
UN. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
Universitets- og høgskoleloven. (2005). Lov om universiteter og høyskoler [Act on Universities and Univesity Colleges] (LOV-2005-04-01-15). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-04-01-15
University Act. (Yliopistolaki 24.7.2009/558). Finlex. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2009/20090558
Utbildningsdepartementet. (2016). En ny organisation för etikprövning av forskning [A new organisation for ethical review of research]. Ds 2016: 46. Stockholm. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/departementsserien-och-promemorior/2016/12/ds-201646/
Vrhovac, B. (2004). Placebo and the Helsinki declarationâwhat to do? Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(1), 81â93.