Applications of Two-Eyed Seeing in Primary Research Focused on Indigenous Health: A Scoping Review

Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall coined “Two-Eyed Seeing” in 2004, an Indigenous concept that emphasizes integrating the strengths of multiple perspectives to address complex challenges in ways that benefit all. In 2011, Two-Eyed Seeing became a policy of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–Institute of Aboriginal Peoples’ Health, as a part of its 5-year plan, and in 2012, CIHR funding was directed toward supporting efforts that apply the concept of Two-Eyed Seeing to research. However, little is known about how Two-Eyed Seeing has been operationalized in research. To address this ambiguity, a scoping review was conducted to map the key concepts involved when researchers intend to follow Two-Eyed Seeing guiding principles to study Indigenous health topics. Three research questions guided this scoping review: (1) What are the general characteristics (e.g., location of study, health topic studied) of primary research that has attempted to apply Two-Eyed Seeing when studying Indigenous health topics? (2) How did researchers operationalize the concept of Two-Eyed Seeing when they applied it to primary studies regarding Indigenous health topics? and (3) What process-related elements were present in Two-Eyed Seeing studies that accomplished their objectives? The results of this scoping review indicate there is an increasing trend in Two-Eyed Seeing–related peer-reviewed publications since its formal introduction by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall. The selected Two-Eyed Seeing–related projects were predominately conducted in Canada and published between 2011 and 2019. Projects predominately incorporated a community-based (participatory) research approach and qualitative/Indigenous methods, and six core process–related themes/elements were identified: (i) power was shared, (ii) culturally safe spaces were fostered, (iii) institutional and community ethics were followed, (iv) research projects were transformative, (v) rigor was maintained, and (vi) the structure of Western academia and traditional policy decision-making processes provided challenges for research teams and community partners, respectively.