Community-based ceremonial review protocol — review circles, consensus-seeking and relational accountability assessment, after the community-grounded credibility Wilson describes (Research Is Ceremony, 2008, pp. 121, 125, 131). Its Elder validation step is the package’s own design.
[!WARNING] Experimental alpha. Part of the Medicine Wheel Developer Suite, which is under active development. APIs change between patch versions and all packages move in lockstep — pin exact versions. See ALPHA.md.
Part of the Medicine Wheel Developer Suite.
Wilson (2008) grounds the credibility of research in relationships, not in peer review: continuous feedback with all participants, who check the analysis and hear each other (p. 121); going back to the community after the writing (Cora, p. 125); co-researchers confirming the work (p. 131). He describes no Elder blessing or Elder review circle as a validation step. This package holds that community-grounded credibility; its Elder validation step is its own design, and whether and how an Elder takes part follows each community’s protocol.
A community body that evaluates an artifact through talking circle, Elder validation, and consensus. Circles progress through: gathering → reviewing → deliberating → decided.
Each participant shares their voice in turn, honoring all directions. Voices are recorded with directional and role context.
Elders provide final validation and blessing, ensuring artifacts honor relational accountability.
Every review outcome includes a check against respect, reciprocity and responsibility, which Wilson names as features of relational accountability (Research Is Ceremony, 2008, p. 77; p. 99). Cora Weber-Pillwax, he writes, “calls these the 3 R’s of Indigenous research and learning” (p. 77); a variant of hers, quoted by Evelyn Steinhauer, has Relationality as the third R (p. 58). The checks below are this package’s reading:
import {
createReviewCircle,
addReviewer,
submitForReview,
talkingCircle,
requestElderValidation,
seekConsensus,
approveWithBlessings,
closeCircle,
} from '@medicine-wheel/community-review';
// Create a circle
let circle = createReviewCircle('research-001', 'research');
// Add reviewers
circle = addReviewer(circle, {
id: 'reviewer-1',
role: 'steward',
direction: 'east',
accountableTo: ['community', 'future-generations'],
});
// Submit for review
circle = submitForReview(circle);
// Add voices in the talking circle
circle = talkingCircle(circle, {
speakerId: 'reviewer-1',
role: 'steward',
direction: 'east',
voice: 'This research honors the land and our relations.',
timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
});
// Request Elder validation
circle = requestElderValidation(circle, 'elder-1');
// Seek consensus
const consensus = seekConsensus(circle);
// Produce outcome
const outcome = approveWithBlessings(circle, 'This work carries our blessing.');
circle = closeCircle(circle, outcome);
createReviewCircle(artifactId, artifactType) — Create a new circleaddReviewer(circle, reviewer) — Add a participantsubmitForReview(circle) — Transition to reviewingcloseCircle(circle, outcome) — Finalize with outcomecircleStatus(circle) — Current state summaryrequestElderValidation(circle, elderId) — Request Elder reviewelderGuidance(circle) — Get Elder’s guidanceelderBlessing(circle, elderId, blessing) — Record blessingseekConsensus(circle) — Attempt consensustalkingCircle(circle, entry) — Add a talking circle entryrecordVoices(circle) — Summarize all voicesresolveDisagreement(circle, process) — Handle disagreementreviewerAccountability(reviewer) — Accountability chainreviewAgainstWilson(circle) — Check against respect, reciprocity and responsibilityreviewAgainstOcap(circle) — Check against OCAP®relationalHealthReview(circle) — Assess relational healthapproveWithBlessings(circle, blessing) — ApproverequestDeepening(circle, areas) — Needs more workreturnToCircle(circle, reason) — Send backceremonialHold(circle, reason) — Pause for ceremony@medicine-wheel/ontology-core@medicine-wheel/ceremony-protocolzodMIT