# Frame Methodology Pack -- Indigenous / Chilisa (`chilisa_indigenous`)

**Source anchor:** Chilisa, *Indigenous Research Methodologies* 2nd ed. (SAGE, 2020).
**Status:** Public-Evaluator. Loaded by Frame Host E3; readable by E2, E4, E5, E8, E9. This pack is both a primary frame and a constitutive overlay -- see `references/CHILISA_OVERLAY_TRIGGER.md` in frame-host.

---

## 1. Methodology

Chilisa proposes **indigenous multicultural validity**: research quality depends on the **relational quality** of researcher-community interactions, on **community-prioritized findings** (what the community needs, not what the academy rewards), and on **culturally appropriate methods** grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems. The methodological core is the **Four Rs** -- **accountable responsibility** to the community, **respect** for its knowledge systems and protocols, **reciprocity** in benefit flow, and **rights-and-regulations**, honoring Indigenous data sovereignty.

As primary frame, a Chilisa audit asks: is the inquiry accountable to the community it investigates? Are methods culturally appropriate to the engaged knowledge system? Does the community recognize the findings as its own priorities? Do rights and protocols (data sovereignty, consent architectures, benefit-sharing) hold across the research lifecycle?

As overlay, Chilisa contributes a **refusal-to-score predicate** attached to whichever frame is bound: if Four-Rs evidence is absent on claims touching Indigenous or non-Western populations, the scoring hook returns `NO_SCORE_FOUR_RS_UNMET`. The overlay is constitutive, not stylistic; auto-activated per `CHILISA_OVERLAY_TRIGGER.md`, not opt-in.

## 2. Claim Types Best-Audited

- Claims concerning Indigenous populations, practices, or knowledge systems.
- Claims about non-Western populations where Western frames' default presumption of extractive inquiry would otherwise apply.
- Relational claims where the research relationship itself is part of the phenomenon.
- Any claim where the community's recognition of the finding as its own priority is a quality criterion.

## 3. Typical Weaknesses

- Floor across Indigenous methodologies, not community-specific. Mi'kmaw, Maori, or Bantu methodologies may require more; Chilisa is a minimum, not substitute.
- "Community-prioritized findings" requires real community involvement; document-only audits can inflate the criterion procedurally.
- Ethical-methodological strength; not designed to displace mechanism, phenomenological, or discourse audits on their terrain.
- Tokenism risk: Four-Rs checklists without substantive engagement fail the spirit while meeting the letter.

## 4. Compatibility Profile (Three Kuhnian Dimensions)

- **Methodological signature:** relational / Indigenous. Inquiry is accountable, respectful, reciprocal, and rights-honoring.
- **Semantic signature:** community-constituted. Meaning is indexed to the community's knowledge system and lifeworld.
- **Ontological signature:** relational-kinship. What there is is relational -- between persons, ancestors, land, non-human kin, and the community's living tradition.

DISTINCT against all three RAM frames: S02 grades evidence by Western epistemic hierarchy; S03 locates mechanisms in stratified reality without community sovereignty; S08 measures informational redundancy as a sample-statistical property. Chilisa constitutes warrant through relational quality, community prioritization, and rights-honoring across all three dimensions.

## 5. Retrieval Hook

- **Corpora:** Indigenous-authored sources; community-prioritized findings; relational-quality documentation; Four-Rs assessments; Indigenous data-governance protocols and consent architectures.
- **Query style:** pair the claim with the community whose knowledge system it engages; seek community-prioritized findings, relational-quality documentation, and rights protocols.
- **Exclusion rules:** extractive research that does not declare relational accountability; research that operates on an Indigenous population without declared consent architecture or benefit-sharing agreement; non-Indigenous framings applied unreflectively to Indigenous domains.

## 6. Scoring Hook

- **axis_warrant:** relational quality of inquiry. Is the research relationship accountable, respectful, reciprocal, and rights-honoring throughout the lifecycle?
- **axis_fit:** community-prioritized finding coverage. Do the findings address what the community identified as priorities, or what the academy identified as publishable?
- **axis_robustness:** culturally appropriate method declaration. Are methods grounded in the community's knowledge system, and is that grounding documented and verified with the community?
- **aggregation_rule:** `non_collapse` (architectural lock).
- **Overlay mode:** when attached to another frame, the Four-Rs predicate gates scoring -- all four Rs attested, or `NO_SCORE_FOUR_RS_UNMET`.

## 7. Termination Hook

- **rule_id:** `four_rs_satisfaction`.
- **minimum_artifacts:** attestation evidence across all four Rs (responsibility, respect, reciprocity, rights-and-regulations), from community-readable records.
- **closure_test:** each of the four Rs is demonstrably attested with community-verified evidence; further artifacts elaborate rather than overturn.

## 8. Authors Cited

Chilisa. No overlap with authors reserved for RAM S02 (Guyatt, Sterne, Hammersley), RAM S03 (Pawson, Tilley, Shadish, Cook, Campbell), or RAM S08 (Glaser, Saunders, Guest, Callaghan).
