Since the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, university museums and academic units have struggled to accomplish the volume of collections work necessary for compliance with available personnel. Simultaneously, students pursuing collections management careers rarely receive adequate compliance training in classroom settings. Involving students in collections documentation is a possible solution for helping practitioners manage archaeological collections and addressing the NAGPRA education gap; however, there are ethical concerns with including students in NAGPRA teams. In this article, we discuss challenges associated with employing students, the need to consult with Tribal Nations about involving students in NAGPRA projects, and safe ways to incorporate student workers into collections management workflows that support repatriation. Ultimately, we argue that employees with student status can be valuable members of a NAGPRA team when their roles are defined through consultation with Tribal Nation partners. Institutions with archaeological collections provide a unique opportunity to train students in proper procedures for documenting NAGPRA collections, cultural sensitivity, and the decolonization of collections management practices. Involving students in NAGPRA initiatives is an important way to teach the next generation to be respectful, well-rounded, and collaborative archaeologists.

In response to stagnated repatriation efforts in the 32 years since the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) became law, a proposed rule to revise implementation regulations was entered into the federal register in October 2022; 181 written comments on the proposed changes were submitted to regulations.gov, representing input from Native nations, the general public, universities, museums, and other individuals and entities engaged in NAGPRA work. Although the comments were publicly available, their quantity and format presented barriers to access. Interested parties could search for and read individual comments, but it was difficult to get an overall impression of demographic or feedback trends among respondents. I undertook a rigorous, independent analysis of the submitted written comments with the goals of (1) providing NAGPRA practitioners with a “snapshot” view of attitudes toward the proposed regulations; (2) considering more closely the responses of NAGPRA stakeholders, in particular Native nations; (3) summarizing the shared and specific concerns of Native respondents; and (4) highlighting the degree to which those concerns were addressed in the issuance of the Final Rule. I hope that this analysis helps focus the lens of NAGPRA praxis in the present moment more squarely on the needs and concerns of the descendant communities most affected by the Act.

The fields of archaeology and museology are working to encourage and enforce research methodologies and policies that center reciprocity and respect among archaeologists, institutions, and Native Nations. This shift in approach is grounded in part by the inclusion of the Duty of Care clause in the revised NAGPRA regulations and partly by a revised awareness of ethical standards. Policy-level changes around research access are the most impactful but can also be the most challenging to initiate. In this article, we address shifts in both institutional research policies and researchers’ approaches and practices that actively incorporate Native perspectives. The framework presented was developed as a complement to the Indigenous Collections Care Guide and is grounded in case studies from three institutions that have changed their research policies. The resulting prompts, tips, examples, and challenges are provided for both researchers and institutions to evaluate research and access practices and how they intersect with Native perspectives. Seeking input and consent from Native Nations adds challenging layers to research, but the depth, quality, and impact of the research and the strengthening of relationships and trust with the communities significantly outweigh the extra time and effort.