Developing Trust, Multiple Identities, and Participatory Research: Select Examples
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Developing Trust, Multiple Identities, and Participatory Research: Select Examples Scarlett Hopkins In community–based participatory research (CBPR), trust among participating individuals and groups is paramount to achieving goals. Trust is an ever–changing and evolving concept implying increasing willingness to take risks with potentially delicate information, an assumption that promises will be kept, and a belief in the good will of the other. When outside researchers enter a community, they are greeted by community members and organizations who have often had prior experience with outside researchers. A critical aspect of this process is the value of outside researchers developing what clinical psychologist James Kelly called an ‘eco–identity” or a way of becoming known in the local community that helps community members “locate” the researcher in the community context and provides a basis for relationship development and subsequent trust. In this paper, I will describe the development of trusting relationships involving genetic studies with Alaska Native communities. The Center for Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) located at the University of Alaska Fairbanks was funded in 2001 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) focusing on obesity and cardiometabolic disease in Yup’ik Alaska Native people in rural southwestern Alaska. Initially, it was comprised of three multi-disciplinary research studies including genetics of obesity, nutrition and physical activity, and cultural understandings of health. Now, CANHR includes behavioral health and nutritional research as well as epigenomic and pharmacogenomic research to address health disparities in Alaska Native people. As a Registered Nurse, I am interested in health disparities in Alaska Native people and the influence of culture on health beliefs, behavior and outcomes. I began working with CANHR in 2002, first as a graduate student in cultural anthropology, then as a research coordinator, and now leading the Community Engagement and Clinical Support Core. One of my responsibilities as a graduate student was initial contact with potential communities who had been selected by the Yukon–Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC), the native health entity providing medical services and overseeing health research in this region. These initial contacts included several visits to the communities to meet with Tribal Governments and community members to discuss the research and gain approval. These first visits were the beginning of trusting and sustained partnerships spanning a 15–year period with over 1,800 Yup’ik participants in our genetic studies. It is important to reflect on and document how trust develops in community research, particularly when it involves basic science rather than community interventions intending to have direct community impact. In the 15 years that I have been involved in multiple projects involving multiple communities, my primary role has been to facilitate the relationship between the university research project team members while simultaneously being involved in recruitment of participants, data collection and dissemination of research progress and findings. During these years, I have come to understand how my various identities have played a role in allowing and promoting relationships with community members. These identities involve my [End Page E12] southern upbringing, being a mid–aged woman with a family, a clinical background in nursing, and my role as a researcher. Initially, I was very nervous, but also very excited about my first visits to these communities. I was not sure what to expect, how I would be received, and what I should or should not do to be culturally respectful. I had read much of the ethnographic literature about Yup’ik people to prepare myself. However, I felt the best and most genuine approach was to just be myself. Being brought up in the South, I was taught to be friendly and greet everyone, whether I knew him or her or not. In each Yup’ik community, I would smile and nod or say hello when passing. I found Yup’ik people were very friendly and welcoming to me. When appropriate, I would introduce myself, and share why I was in their community. I think my excitement over being in their community and my eagerness to learn about their culture was evident. Over time, I got to know many individuals in the communities by name, learned much abut their lives and their...
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
Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)
Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.
| Bras | Catégories | Devis d'étude | Confiance |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Qualitatif | low |
| gpt | Métarecherche Domaine: Méthodes · Genre: Commentaire Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Qualitatif | low |
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 | 0,017 | 0,030 |
| 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 | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| 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 validéeÉtiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.
Les modèles divergent sur des parties de cette classification; chaque voix est préservée dans la section en fin de page.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».