Yarning with remote Aboriginal communities about seeking consent for research, culturally respectful community engagement and genuine research partnerships
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
If the invitation to research is not delivered in a way that is understood, or acknowledges that participants may come from a different world-view, it may affect participation rates, and research findings and research relationships with Indigenous communities. Reflections on the consent process and community engagement for research with Indigenous populations are rarely documented as shown in our systematic review.1 In response, The Picture Talk Project was initiated by leaders of remote Aboriginal communities of the Kimberley to have a ‘Yarn’ about the research process.2 Aboriginal leaders formed a partnership with researchers from Sydney and Darwin. Locally respected Aboriginal people were employed to work as Community Navigators and interpret language, provide cultural guidance and learn Western research approaches. Community leaders were interviewed (research topic yarning) and focus groups (collaborative yarns) were held with Aboriginal community members comprising of parents or carers about their understanding of research, the consent process and their preference of how communities should be engaged and how information should be presented. Focus group participants were also given the option to draw pictures on paper during the focus group in order to divert focus to a mutual activity. Transcripts are analysed using NVivo10 qualitative software and coded using inductive and deductive coding with grounded theory. Major Themes are synthesised and supporting quotes from participants were identified. Participants were from different age groups, both males and females and from main local language groups of the Fitzroy Valley, namely Bunuba, Gooniyandi, Walmajarri, Wangkatjungka and Nykina. Interview analysis reveals five main themes: Research – finding knowledge; Showing respect for Aboriginal people, working on country and being flexible with time; Working together with good communication; Reciprocity – learning two ways and Reaching consent. Themes emerging from the focus group data include: Research – your knowledge; Communication – ‘Milli Milli’ (written word) versus Pictures; Community Research Relationships – ‘Checking in’; and Future Directions: What to research next? Aboriginal communities want researchers to change their approach to community engagement. Specific feedback is given on how to communicate in a way that is embraced by remote Aboriginal communities leading to better recruitment rates and more meaningful research outcomes and forming relationships which embody respect for Aboriginal culture.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,067 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».