Getting to the heart of the matter: a research partnership with Aboriginal women in South and Central Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the vast majority of qualitative health research involving Indigenous populations, Indigenous people have been marginalised from research conceptualisation and conduct. This reflects a lack of regard for Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing, has served to perpetuate deficit narratives of Indigenous peoples’ health and wellbeing, and contributes to failure in addressing inequities as a result of ongoing colonisation and institutionalised oppression and racism. There is a need to place Indigenous voices and ways of doing at the centre of research by working in intercultural partnership, bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledges. This paper explores how such an approach can be applied, demonstrating a reflective process of conceptualisation and conduct that brings together Indigenous ways of working with grounded theory with Aboriginal communities in Australia. Furthermore, it supported a non-Indigenous researcher to learn ways of working respectfully, guided by community protocols. A six-stage research process was developed, overseen by an Aboriginal Women’s Advisory Group. Research conceptualisation and conduct centred on three principles: bringing together Aboriginal ways of working with Western research methodology; using women’s own voices to develop a narrative of cardiovascular health and wellbeing; and ensuring that tangible outcomes were delivered to women and communities in the spirit of partnership and reciprocity. This approach, guided at all steps by Indigenous women, demonstrates a way of adapting qualitative Western methodology to ensure values and principles of ethical guidelines of conduct are upheld to unravel constructs of colonisation, redress past wrongdoing, and reverse deficit narratives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".