Dr. Stephanie A. Fryberg
Founding Director, Research for Indigenous Social Action & Equity Center (RISE) at Northwestern University
Professor of Psychology, Northwestern University

In our data-driven world, numbers often masquerade as irrefutable facts. Yet, for Native communities, data can be a double-edged sword – capable of both empowering and erasing.

The importance of gathering accurate and comprehensive data cannot be overstated, but it is equally crucial to recognize and challenge flawed information, particularly concerning historically marginalized groups.

The recent 2024 general election exit polls provide a pertinent example of this issue. While these polls are intended to capture voter preferences and sentiments, they often fall short in accurately representing Native American voices. Our analysis of the 2024 exit poll dataset indicated that Native voters were underrepresented, with a small sample size creating misleading conclusions about electoral preferences.

The media, tasked with informing the public, is not immune to data illiteracy, particularly when it comes to Native Americans. The aftermath of the 2024 general election has starkly illustrated how journalists fall victim to erroneous data, propagating narratives that rely on polls with questionable methodology that would not hold up to scientific rigor. This misrepresentation is not merely an academic concern; it has tangible consequences for our communities.

All too often, Native peoples are either excluded from datasets or represented by such small sample sizes that meaningful conclusions become impossible. This systematic underrepresentation in research and statistics leads to a significant gap in our understanding of Indigenous communities’ unique challenges and needs, effectively rendering our experiences invisible.

For example, while exit polls indicated shifts in voter preferences among various demographics, the lack of robust data on Native voters raised serious questions about our actual electoral impact and priorities.

This statistical invisibility perpetuates harmful stereotypes and omission from critical policy decisions, effectively erasing Native experiences from the national conversation. Consequently, policies and interventions based on such incomplete data often fail to adequately address the realities faced by Native communities, perpetuating cycles of inequity and marginalization.

As consumers of information, we all have a responsibility to approach data with a critical eye, especially when it pertains to underrepresented groups. Recognizing the limitations of many polls and advocating for more inclusive data collection methods can help ensure that the voices of Native communities are heard and considered in future electoral processes and policy discussions.

As a Native scientist and a researcher, here are some key questions I ask when evaluating data about my people:

Who conducted the research?

Look for the authors of the research or the data source. Many news channels use a third party firm to conduct their research and/or polling. Make sure to look for the source of the information and not just the headline.

The 2024 general election exit poll was conducted by Edison Research on behalf of several national news organizations – none of which were Native-led.

Native-led research and collaborative efforts with tribal governments and Native organizations provide more comprehensive and authentic insights, highlighting the complex realities of Indigenous communities through culturally informed and contextually grounded data collection methodologies.

While representation is crucial, it’s not a guarantee of unbiased or high-quality research. There have been instances where a small sample of individuals from within a community has been used to make broad, potentially misleading claims about the entire group, highlighting the importance of scrutinizing research methodologies.

What is the sample size?

In this case, a sample size is the total number of people who were surveyed as part of the data set. If there are a total of 9.7 million Native American and Alaska Native people in this country, does the sample size seem representative?

The exit polling that followed the 2024 general election had a sample size of approximately 229 individuals who self-identified as Native.

There are 574 federally recognized tribes in the United States, each with different cultures and practices. This sample is far too small for larger insights into Indigenous voting patterns. Small samples, such as this one, can lead to unreliable conclusions that misrepresent the attitudes and experiences of Native Americans.

What are the demographics of the poll?

When evaluating polls or surveys, it’s crucial to consider whether people from rural or tribal communities are adequately represented in the sample. Standard census data often falls short in capturing these populations accurately, particularly in remote or reservation areas.

For instance, the U.S. Census has historically undercounted Native Americans living on reservations, sometimes by significant margins. This underrepresentation in baseline data can lead to skewed results in polls that rely on census information for their sampling frameworks, potentially misrepresenting the views and experiences of entire communities.

Census data, often touted as the gold standard for polling integrity, consistently fails to adequately represent Native peoples, perpetuating a cycle of statistical invisibility. To rectify this systemic oversight and ensure accurate insights, polling methodologies need to prioritize far-reaching and diverse data collection strategies that authentically capture the complexities of Indigenous experiences.

In the case of the 2024 general election exit poll, individuals were asked to self-report different facets of their identity – such as age, ethnicity, geographic location, income, and more – along with their voting behavior.

With 80 percent of respondents to the 2024 exit poll identifying as urban or suburban, we know that many of our tribal communities were underrepresented similarly to how we are omitted from the decennial Census data.

Where and how were people surveyed?

Our Native communities are not one dimensional. We live in all corners of the country, from remote villages to urban centers to checkerboard reservations. Taking a close look at the representation in the diversity of Indian Country and how it is represented on a map is important.

Methods that work in urban centers may fail to capture the experiences of those living on rural reservations, often in remote locations with lack of access to technology and high speed internet.

Exit polling in 2024 was conducted at 279 election-day polling places and 27 early in-person voting locations, as well as via phone, text, and email. None of the polling was done on tribal land.

By asking these questions, we can begin to distinguish between reliable data and information that misrepresents Native experiences. This critical approach is essential not just for us as media consumers, but for journalists, policymakers, and researchers as well.

Proper representation requires thoughtful and culturally sensitive approaches to data collection, particularly in the context of national elections. Pollsters and researchers face unique challenges when working with Native communities, as evidenced by the exit polls that employed flawed methodologies in an attempt to capture Native voter preferences.

Historical mistreatment and exploitation have fostered deep-seated mistrust in many tribal contexts. Overcoming this barrier demands building long-term relationships, engaging communities as partners, and embracing transparency throughout the research process.

The recent exit polls highlighted significant issues, such as small sample sizes and inadequate representation of individuals living on reservations, which routinely alienate Native voices from important discussions by misrepresenting our realities and perspectives, ultimately perpetuating a cycle of ignorance and omission in national discourse and policy-making processes.

A one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure; instead, methodologies must be tailored to specific tribal contexts to ensure that the data reflects the diverse realities of Indigenous peoples.

To truly understand and evaluate survey data on Native communities, we must demand transparency in the research methodologies employed. This includes scrutinizing how questions were framed, who was involved in designing the survey, and how data was collected and interpreted. This transparency allows for critical examination of potential biases and ensures that Indigenous perspectives are accurately represented.

However, to truly improve data quality and representation we must amplify Native-led research efforts. Increasing Native involvement in designing and conducting polls and research can dramatically improve cultural relevance and community trust in the process. This shift not only gathers more accurate data, but also empowers Native communities to correct and shape the narratives told about them.

The stakes are high. Flawed data has real-world consequences for Native communities, while accurate, culturally sensitive data collection can drive positive change, inform effective policies, and empower Native voices in the national discourse.

As we strive for a more equitable society, we must recognize that data is not neutral. It reflects the biases, limitations, and priorities of those who collect and interpret it. By demanding better data about Native peoples, supporting Native-led research initiatives, and honing our ability to spot problematic data, we take crucial steps toward a more accurate and just representation of Native experiences in our national conversation.

Dr. Stephanie A. Fryberg (Tulalip) is the Founding Director of the Research for Indigenous Social Action & Equity Center (RISE) and Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. Bridging the fields of social and cultural psychology and Indigenous studies at the RISE Center, Dr. Fryberg and her team conduct rigorous research to understand Indigenous experiences, uplift Indigenous voices, and address the systemic disparities facing Native communities. To learn more about RISE and Dr. Fryberg’s work visit https://sites.northwestern.edu/rise. 

This opinion-editorial essay does not reflect the views of ICT; voices in our opinion section represent a variety of reader points of view. If you would like to contribute an essay to ICT, email opinion@ictnews.org.

More information about our guidelines: Submission guidelines.