Who Is A Native American?

The question of is a Native American can be contentious. The Native American Rights Fund defines a Native American as “a person who is of some degree Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a tribe/village and/or the United States” (Native American Rights Fund n.d.). Native nations have always had diverse mechanisms for identifying and recognizing citizens of their nations (Rodriguez-Lonebear Reference Rodriguez-Lonebear2021). However, federal Indian laws and policies have attempted to define who is a Native American, historically motivated by genocidal campaigns to exterminate Native American peoples, their identities, and cultures (Deloria and Lytle Reference Deloria and Lytle1998; Hill and Ratteree Reference Hill and Ratteree2017; Pevar Reference Pevar2012; Wilkins and Stark Reference Wilkins and Stark2017). These policies, combined with socioeconomic realities resulting from colonialism for Native peoples living in reservation communities have led to migration, relocation, and urbanization. There also has been a pervasive phenomenon of settlers “playing Indian” and falsely appropriating Native identity and heritage (e.g., “pretendians”). Family lore is sustained across generations of settlers, with many claiming a Cherokee princess in the bloodline, for example (Deloria Reference Deloria1998). These claims may be corroborated by new DNA tests that reveal some percentage of “Indigenous blood” (Kolopenuk Reference Kolopenuk2023; Nagle Reference Nagle2019; TallBear Reference TallBear2013). These are only a few of the factors that contribute to the complexities of defining who is a Native American.

Questions of identity are significant because current survey methods perpetuate a race-based understanding of Native American identity, disregarding the sovereign rights of Native nations as political collectives with inherent rights to determine and recognize their citizenry. Questions of identity also raise important questions about who speaks for Native peoples, what their cultural and political connections are to their Native nation(s), and do those who claim to be Native American understand and/or have lived experiences of Native life under settler colonialism (Wilkins and Stark Reference Wilkins and Stark2017).

The CMPS attempted to address some of the complexities of Native American identity by asking multiple questions, with self-identification as a baseline for further exploration. Table 1 lists some of the CMPS indicators, including Native nation ancestry. These data reveal that there are differences in self-identification, lineage, and tribal connections. Individuals may self-identify as Native American but it may not be their primary identity—and even if people state that being Native American is their primary identity, they may not have identified as Native American on the 2020 US Census. CMPS questions did not ask if respondents were enrolled tribal citizens but they did ask about tribal ancestry. Many respondents did not know to which Indigenous tribe they trace their ancestry. Beyond these measures, the CMPS also contains an additional identity measure with a weighted total of 1,956 self-identified Native American respondents (not used in this analysis). Researchers using the CMPS should consult the CMPS Methods Statement, be transparent about their measure of Native American respondents, and justify why it is appropriate, as well as the possible limitations of the indicator(s).

Table 1 Native American Identity Questions on CMPS and Sample Size

Note: Weighted sample (os_weight).

Identity, Culture, And Political Outcomes

The questions of who is Native American and how we measure it may affect the political outcomes we are interested in as social scientists. Table 2 presents descriptive outputs from the CMPS Native American sample for the following identity measures: individuals who self-identify as Native American, individuals who state that Native American is their primary race or ethnicity, and individuals who identified as Native American in the 2020 US Census. Of those respondents who self-identified, 69% stated that Native American is their primary identity and 58% identified as Native American on the 2020 US Census (Liebler Reference Liebler2018; Liebler, Bhaskar, and Porter Reference Liebler, Bhaskar and Porter2016).

Table 2 Native American Identity and Select Socioeconomic Status, Political, and Cultural Variables

Note: Weighted sample (os_weight).

We describe subsample differences and similarities in select social, political, and cultural variables to show similarities and differences in some outcomes. There were differences in whether individuals perceive themselves as multiracial: 62% of those who self-identified as Native American stated that they are multiracial; 58% stated that Native American is their primary identity; and 54% of those identified as Native American on the 2020 census. We also found differences in political variables by identity measure. For example, those who stated that Native American was their primary identity were less likely to be registered to vote (37%) compared to individuals who self-identified as Native American (43%) and those who identified as Native American on the 2020 US Census (40%). There also were differences in vote-choice and party-identification rates. Individuals who noted that they were Native American on the 2020 US Census were slightly more likely to state that they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 (50%) compared to the other two subgroups. Regarding party identification, Native Americans tend mostly to identify as Independents; however, 33% of respondents who identified as Native American on the 2020 US Census identified as Democrats—slightly higher among identity measures. One of the major differences between identity measures was respondents who reported discussing politics with their friends or family: 60% who self-identified as Native American reported having done so, with smaller rates among those who identified as Native American in the 2020 US Census (52%) and those who stated being Native American was their primary identity (55%).

The CMPS also asked questions that attempted to capture a connection to Native American culture and community, and there were differences among these identity measures. This was similar to Fryberg et al.’s (Reference Fryberg, Eason, Brady, Jessop and Lopez2021) research, which used more than 20 different measures of attachment. For those respondents who self-identified as Native American, a greater percentage stated that they have never attended a cultural event, are less likely to express trust in tribal governments, and do not speak a Native language either well or somewhat well. These cultural connections are somewhat more pronounced across identity measures and can yield important insight into how cultural factors shape the politics of Native Americans (Foxworth, Ellenwood, and Evans Reference Foxworth, Ellenwood and Evans2024). Some differences in political outcomes are subtle and not always statistically different; however, greater exploration is needed to understand if and how differences in Native American identity, lineage, and citizenship matter for political outcomes.

Ongoing Challenges: Indigenous Data Sovereignty, Governance, And Care Principles

In responding to histories of research exploitation, Indigenous peoples have mobilized to call for research that centers them, their knowledge, and governance systems. This call asserts that ethical research practices should support Indigenous communities by advancing their methods of inquiry and be used to advance Native rights and other sovereign interests. To accomplish this, scholars must engage directly with Native communities to understand their needs, interests, and research methods and designs. Unfortunately, political science continues to devalue community-engaged research, which often is dismissed as “activist scholarship” that violates standards of objectivity and neutrality (Gellman Reference Gellman2022; Smith Reference Smith2006; Walter and Andersen Reference Walter and Andersen2013).

Indigenous peoples are operationalizing new research standards, practices, and protocols rooted in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-Sov) and Indigenous Data Governance (ID-Gov). ID-Sov is the inherent right of Native nations to govern the collection, ownership, and application of their own data. ID-Gov centers on collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) principles, outlining how research and data must center and benefit Indigenous peoples. This is in sharp contrast to research practices that have problematized Indigenous peoples, their experiences, and sovereignty (Kukutai and Taylor Reference Kukutai and Taylor2016). CARE principles include the following:

• • Collective benefit ensures that Indigenous peoples develop, benefit from, and access research and data.

• • Authority to control is the right of Indigenous peoples to govern data.

• • Responsibility positions data to build the local capacity of Indigenous communities.

• • Ethics requires Indigenous values and ethics to be reflected in research so that Indigenous peoples can benefit from research.

ID-Sov and ID-Gov ensure that Indigenous peoples’ values, worldviews, knowledge, and governance systems are centered within the entire research process. CARE principles implement ID-Gov and supplement mainstream data principles such as Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable and Data Access and Research Transparency (Global Indigenous Data Alliance n.d.). CARE principles “empower Indigenous Peoples by shifting the focus from regulated consultation to value-based relationships that position data approaches within Indigenous cultures and knowledge systems to the benefit of Indigenous Peoples” (Carroll et al. Reference Carroll, Herczog, Hudson, Russell and Stall2021, 108). That is, to advance survey research that includes Native peoples, researchers must ensure that ID-Sov and ID-Gov are addressed in their research practices and designs. Many Native nations manage formal Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to actualize their inherent rights of ID-Gov. Native nation IRBs vary in size, scope, and authority, but Native nations actively govern data-collection processes that occur on tribal lands and/or include data about their Native nation and citizens. Given that surveys may collect data from Native peoples in Native nations, the issues of navigating Native Nation IRBs, tribal sovereignty, and distinct tribal laws requires further exploration and have implications for future survey research.

ID-Sov and ID-Gov both prioritize Native American community engagement in research, but the scope of engagement can vary by community. However, minimum standards must include discussions with Native-community cross-sector leaders, ensuring Native-nation access and ownership of data and prioritizing community needs and sovereign interests. Ownership of data is one aspect that many social scientists may take issue with because this means that these scholars must cede power to the communities that they seek to understand (Gellman Reference Gellman2022). Therefore, researchers must actively take additional measures to not harm Native American peoples and their communities. The small population of Native peoples in some geographic areas, combined with the historical and ongoing levels of colonial violence and hostility, significantly increases the importance of ensuring Native participants’ safety, security, and anonymity.

Recognizing who is a “real” Native American is an ongoing challenge for survey research. This is important because Native American identities are not only racial and ethnic categories; Native peoples also are citizens of sovereign Native nations.

Concluding Thoughts On Surveying Native Americans

In 2020, oversample directors with CMPS principal investigators developed a plan to engage Native leaders and other experts to solicit their input on best practices, instrument design, and more. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic impaired these efforts. The CMPS can be a valuable source of public survey data on Native American political attitudes as well as a first important step toward engaging important issues that are related to histories of research abuse, tribal sovereignty, complexities around identity, and the need to engage Indigenous scholars and scholarship across academic disciplines. A panoptic solution to engaging Native communities is beyond the scope of this article. However, we believe that it provides insight into current tensions between survey research and Native Americans by identifying pathways to improve data practices that are responsive to Native communities.