TCPS2 Chapter 9 (Research Involving Indigenous Peoples)

TCPS2 Chapter 9 — formally “Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada” — is the chapter of the TCPS2 (Tri-Council Policy Statement) that interprets how the Policy’s three core principles (Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare, and Justice) apply specifically to research involving Indigenous peoples of Canada. Where the general TCPS2 term covers the Policy as a whole, this page focuses on what Chapter 9 itself requires: community engagement, a documented research agreement, and — where a recognized community authority exists — review at both the institutional Research Ethics Board (REB) and community level before recruitment or data collection begins.

What Chapter 9 covers

Chapter 9 was introduced in the 2010 edition of TCPS2 and has been revised in subsequent editions (2014, 2018, 2022) to reflect evolving practice and Indigenous-led governance frameworks. It applies to research that engages First Nations, Inuit, and Métis individuals, communities, or their data, conducted under the auspices of an institution eligible for Tri-Agency (CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC) funding — the same institutional-eligibility scope that governs TCPS2 as a whole. The chapter frames the researcher-community relationship as one requiring reciprocity: an obligation to give something back in return for the knowledge, participation, and access a community provides, rather than a purely extractive data-collection relationship.

The chapter is organized as a sequence of articles, each paired with explanatory guidance, addressing (among other things) when community engagement is expected, what a research agreement should contain, and how research ethics review should incorporate both the institutional REB and any responsible community-based review process. Researchers and REBs working through Chapter 9 should read the current article text directly at the Government of Canada’s official TCPS 2 (2022) Chapter 9 page rather than relying on any secondary summary, including this one, for the exact wording of a specific article.

When Chapter 9 applies — and when it doesn’t

Chapter 9 applies whenever research involves living Indigenous individuals, their communities, or data collected from or about them in a way that engages community interests. It is not triggered simply because a study’s subject matter relates to Indigenous topics in the abstract. TCPS2 guidance recognizes exceptions: research relying only on information already legally in the public domain, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, generally does not require community engagement under Chapter 9, in the same way TCPS2’s general publicly-available-information exception (addressed in Chapter 2) limits when REB review is triggered at all. Where a researcher is not proposing community engagement — for example because the research is not community-specific, or engagement is genuinely not feasible — TCPS2 guidance associated with the chapter’s early articles (around Articles 9.1–9.2) calls for the researcher to provide the REB with a rationale for that decision rather than simply omitting engagement without explanation.

Community engagement

Community engagement, as Chapter 9 uses the term, is the process of establishing an interaction between a researcher (or research team) and the Indigenous community relevant to the research, signalling an intent to form a collaborative relationship. The degree of collaboration can vary with the community’s own preferences and the nature of the research, but the chapter treats engagement as the normal expectation, not an optional courtesy. In practice, engagement typically means identifying the community’s designated representative or governance body, discussing the proposed research’s purpose, risks, and anticipated benefits, and giving the community a meaningful opportunity to shape or decline participation before recruitment of individual participants begins. This is distinct from — though frequently paired with — Indigenous community review, which is the community’s own formal review of a research proposal (via an elders’ council, community REC, or governance body), and from Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which concerns the community’s collective consent to the research proceeding at all, as distinct from individual participant consent.

Research agreements

Where a community has formally engaged with a researcher or research team through a designated representative, Chapter 9 calls for the terms and mutual undertakings of both parties to be set out in a research agreement before participants are recruited. A research agreement typically addresses matters such as: how the community will be involved in the design and conduct of the research; ownership, access to, and control over data and biological materials collected (an area that connects directly to the OCAP Principles — ownership, control, access, and possession — developed by the First Nations Information Governance Centre); how findings will be reported back to the community and reviewed prior to publication; attribution and any compensation or benefit-sharing; and how disputes will be resolved. CIHR guidance in particular emphasizes documenting these expectations formally in health research involving Indigenous communities, rather than leaving them as informal understandings.

Research ethics review under Chapter 9

Chapter 9 research still requires institutional REB review under the general TCPS2 framework (see IRB/REC approval process), but the chapter’s guidance — associated with articles addressing REB review of Indigenous-focused research, including Articles 9.9 and 9.11 — calls for that review to take into account, and where a recognized community authority exists to be complemented by, review at the community level. In practice this can mean an REB requesting evidence of community engagement and, where applicable, evidence of community-level review or approval, as part of the ethics application, before authorizing recruitment or data collection to proceed.

How Chapter 9 relates to OCAP, CARE, and Indigenous data sovereignty

Chapter 9 is a research-ethics framework administered through Canada’s Tri-Agency REB system; it is not the same instrument as, but is closely related in practice to, several Indigenous-led data governance frameworks that increasingly inform how Chapter 9 obligations are actually implemented:

• The OCAP Principles (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession), a trademarked framework of the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC), specifically for First Nations data.
• The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), which address data governance more broadly across Indigenous peoples internationally.
• The broader concept of Indigenous Data Sovereignty, of which OCAP and CARE are specific expressions.
• Indigenous-knowledge holder contribution, relevant where research draws on traditional or community-held knowledge as a substantive input rather than treating community members solely as research subjects.

A research agreement satisfying Chapter 9 will often explicitly incorporate OCAP or CARE commitments where the partner community has adopted them, but Chapter 9 review and community-specific data governance frameworks remain distinct requirements that should each be checked, not assumed to be satisfied by the other.

Frequently asked questions

Does Chapter 9 apply to all research about Indigenous topics?

No. It applies where research involves living First Nations, Inuit, or Métis individuals, their communities, or data collected from or about them in a way that engages community interests. Research using only information already legally in the public domain, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, is generally not subject to the chapter’s community-engagement requirement, though researchers should not assume an exception applies without confirming it with their REB.

Is community engagement the same as individual informed consent?

No. Informed consent is obtained from each individual participant. Community engagement operates at the collective level, addressing the community’s own interests, governance, and, where FPIC applies, its collective consent to the research proceeding — both are typically required, and neither substitutes for the other.

Is a research agreement legally binding?

TCPS2 does not itself specify a fixed legal form for a research agreement; institutions and communities determine the appropriate instrument, which can range from a formal contract to a documented memorandum of understanding. What Chapter 9 requires is that mutual expectations and undertakings be set out and agreed before participant recruitment begins, not that a specific legal instrument be used.

Where can I read the actual text of Chapter 9?

The current version is published by the Government of Canada’s Panel on Research Ethics at ethics.gc.ca, as part of TCPS 2 (2022). Researchers should consult that primary text directly for the current wording of any specific article.

References

• Government of Canada, Panel on Research Ethics, “TCPS 2 (2022) – Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada” (ethics.gc.ca)
• CIHR, “Ethics Guidelines for Health Research Involving Indigenous Peoples” (cihr-irsc.gc.ca)
• First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC), OCAP Principles
• Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance