Dataset Information

Exploring the approaches of non-Indigenous researchers to Indigenous research: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Given the history of unethical research in Indigenous communities, there is often apprehension among Indigenous communities toward research carried out by non-Indigenous researchers. We examined the approaches, experiences and motivations among non-Indigenous researchers at a research-intensive Canadian university conducting research with Indigenous communities to understand approaches to ethical research with Indigenous peoples. METHODS:We performed a critical constructivist qualitative study incorporating decolonizing methodologies. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 non-Indigenous University of Toronto researchers with a research focus/interest related to Indigenous health between August and October 2017. The interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed through an iterative process. Shared experiences among the researchers were arranged into primary themes. RESULTS:We identified 4 primary themes related to the conduct of Indigenous research by non-Indigenous researchers: 1) relationships with communities are foundational to the research process, 2) non-Indigenous researchers experience a personal self-reflective journey grounded in reconciliation, allyship and privilege, 3) accepted knowledge frameworks in Indigenous research are familiar to most but are inconsistently applied and 4) institutions act as barriers to and facilitators of ethical conduct of Indigenous research. Four core principles - relationships, trust, humility and accountability - unified the primary themes. INTERPRETATION:We identified strengths and areas for improvement of current policies and practices in Indigenous research by non-Indigenous researchers. Although non-Indigenous researchers value relationships, and their research is informed by Indigenous knowledge, institutional barriers to implementing recommended elements exist, and certain policy statements such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 lack applicability to secondary data analysis for some non-Indigenous researchers.

SUBMITTER: Kilian A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6715113 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring the approaches of non-Indigenous researchers to Indigenous research: a qualitative study.

Kilian Alexandra A Fellows Tyee Kenneth TK Giroux Ryan R Pennington Jason J Kuper Ayelet A Whitehead Cynthia R CR Richardson Lisa L

CMAJ open 20190701 3

<h4>Background</h4>Given the history of unethical research in Indigenous communities, there is often apprehension among Indigenous communities toward research carried out by non-Indigenous researchers. We examined the approaches, experiences and motivations among non-Indigenous researchers at a research-intensive Canadian university conducting research with Indigenous communities to understand approaches to ethical research with Indigenous peoples.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a critical construc ...[more]

PMID: 31451446

Similar Datasets

Project description:Much of the published research on evidence-informed health policymaking in low- and middle-income countries has focused on policymakers, overlooking the role of health researchers in the research-to-policy process. Through 20 semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews conducted with researchers in Argentina's rural northwest and the capital of Buenos Aires, we explore the perspectives, experiences and attitudes of Argentine health researchers regarding the use and impact of health research in policymaking in Argentina. We find that the researcher, and the researcher's function of generating evidence, is nested within a broader complex system that influences the researcher's interaction with policymaking. This system comprises communities of practice, government departments/civil society organizations, bureaucratic processes and political governance and executive leadership. At the individual level, researcher capacity and determinants of research availability also play a role in contributing to evidence-informed policymaking. In addition, we find a recurrent theme around 'lack of trust' and explore the role of trust within a research system, finding that researchers' distrust towards policymakers and even other researchers are linked inextricably to the sociopolitical history of Argentina, which contributes to shaping researchers' identities in opposition to policymakers. For policymakers, national research councils and funders of national health research systems, this article provides a deeper understanding of researchers' perceptions which can help inform and improve programme design when developing interventions to enhance research utilization and develop equitable and rational health policies. For donors and development agencies interested in health research capacity building and achieving development goals, this research demonstrates a need for investment in building research capacity and training health researchers to interact with the public policy 'world' and enhancing research communications and transferability to decision makers. It also highlights an opportunity to invest in implementation research platforms, such as health policy research and analysis institutions.

Project description:ObjectivesParticipant-led research (PLR) is a rapidly developing form of citizen science in which individuals can create personal and generalisable knowledge. Although PLR lacks a formal framework for ethical review, participants should not be excused from considering the ethical implications of their work. Therefore, a PLR cohort consisting of 24 self-trackers aimed to: (1) substitute research ethics board procedures with engagement in ethical reflection before and throughout the study and (2) draft principles to encourage further development of the governance and ethical review of PLR.MethodsA qualitative case study method was used to analyse the ethical reflection process. Participants discussed study risks, risk management strategies and benefits pre-project, during a series of weekly webinars, via individual meetings with the participant-organisers, and during semi-structured interviews at project completion. Themes arising from discussions and interviews were used to draft prospective principles to guide PLR.ResultsData control, aggregation and identifiability were the most common risks identified. These were addressed by a commitment to transparency among all participants and by establishing participant control via self-collection and self-management of data. Group discussions and resources (eg, assistance with experimental design and data analysis) were the most commonly referenced benefits of participation. Additional benefits included greater understanding of one's physiology and greater ability to structure an experiment. Nine principles were constructed to encourage further development of ethical PLR practices. All participants expressed interest in participating in future PLR.ConclusionsProjects involving a small number of participants can sustain engagement in ethical reflection among participants and participant-organisers. PLR that prioritises transparency, participant control of data and ongoing risk-to-benefit evaluation is compatible with the principles that underlie traditional ethical review of health research, while being appropriate for a context in which citizen scientists play the central role.

Project description:With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

Project description:IntroductionValue and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.MethodsThis explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.ResultsThe analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.ConclusionsEven though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Innovative ways of planning and conducting research have emerged recently, based on the concept of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is defined as shared intelligence emerging when people are mobilized within or outside an organization to work on a specific task that could result in more innovative outcomes than those when individuals work alone. Crowdsourcing is defined as "the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call." OBJECTIVE:This qualitative study aimed to identify the barriers to mobilizing collective intelligence and ways to overcome these barriers and provide good practice advice for planning and conducting collective intelligence projects across different research disciplines. METHODS:We conducted a multinational online open-ended question survey and semistructured audio-recorded interviews with a purposive sample of researchers who had experience in running collective intelligence projects. The questionnaires had an interactive component, enabling respondents to rate and comment on the advice of their fellow respondents. Data were analyzed thematically, drawing on the framework method. RESULTS:A total of 82 respondents from various research fields participated in the survey (n=65) or interview (n=17). The main barriers identified were the lack of evidence-based guidelines for implementing collective intelligence, complexity in recruiting and engaging the community, and difficulties in disseminating the results of collective intelligence projects. We drew on respondents' experience to provide tips and good practice advice for governance, planning, and conducting collective intelligence projects. Respondents particularly suggested establishing a diverse coordination team to plan and manage collective intelligence projects and setting up common rules of governance for participants in projects. In project planning, respondents provided advice on identifying research problems that could be answered by collective intelligence and identifying communities of participants. They shared tips on preparing the task and interface and organizing communication activities to recruit and engage participants. CONCLUSIONS:Mobilizing collective intelligence through crowdsourcing is an innovative method to increase research efficiency, although there are several barriers to its implementation. We present good practice advice from researchers with experience of collective intelligence across different disciplines to overcome barriers to mobilizing collective intelligence.

Project description:BackgroundResearch evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.MethodsA qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.ConclusionsThis study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Dataset Information

Exploring the approaches of non-Indigenous researchers to Indigenous research: a qualitative study.

Publications

Exploring the approaches of non-Indigenous researchers to Indigenous research: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets