An Antiracism Community-Based Participatory Research With Organizations Serving Immigrant and Marginalized Communities, Including Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders in the United States Pacific Northwest: Qualitative Description Study With Key Informants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Asian American (AA) community leaders, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI) community leaders, and allies in the United States Pacific Northwest expressed concern that there are families and children from AA communities and NH/PI communities who experience and witness acts of xenophobia and racism. This can cause racial trauma. The long-time practice of aggregating AA and NH/PI data contributes to erasure and makes it challenging to advance health equity, such as allocating resources. According to AAPI Data's long-awaited report in June 2022, there are over 24 million AAs and 1.6 million NHs/PIs in the United States, growing by 40% and 30%, respectively, between 2010 and 2020. Philanthropic investments have not kept up with this substantive increase. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine emphasized the need for effective partnerships to advance the health and well-being of individuals and communities in antiracism and system-level research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this community-based participatory research qualitative description study was to identify perceptions and experiences regarding racial discrimination, race-based stress, and racial trauma; intergenerational healing and resiliency; and sharing the body with science from key informants of an academic and community partnership to inform antiracism coalition work. This partnership includes academic researchers and community leaders from community-based organizations and a health care organization serving immigrant and marginalized communities, including AAs and NHs/PIs in the United States Pacific Northwest. METHODS: In total, 10 key informants joined 1 of 2 participatory group discussions via videoconference for 2 hours in 2022. We used a semistructured and open-ended group interview guide. A qualitative participatory group-level assessment was conducted with the key informants and transcribed. Interpretations and meanings of the main points and the main themes were reflected upon, clarified, and verified with the key informants in real time. The field note-based data transcripts were manually coded using conventional content analysis. Reflexivity was used. RESULTS: There were 6 main themes: prejudice plus power in racism definition and working in solidarity to counter lateral oppression/false sense of security, microaggression as multilayers, "not assimilationist by nature" and responding differently to white superiority, intergenerational- and identity-related trauma, what is healing among People of Color and through a lens of resiliency and intergenerational connection and knowledge, and mistrust and fear in the research and health care systems surrounding intentions of the body. CONCLUSIONS: The themes highlight the importance of internal and intergenerational healing from racial trauma and the need for solidarity among communities of color to combat white supremacy and colonization. This work was foundational in an ongoing effort to dismantle racism and uplift the community voice through a cross-sector academic and community partnership to inform antiracism coalition work.
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 | 0,013 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».