Fostering Culturally Responsive Research Practices: Engaging Black Communities in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Engaging Black communities in research requires culturally responsive methods to address systemic barriers such as mistrust, systemic racism, and underrepresentation. This study explores strategies to foster meaningful research engagement with Black communities in Western Canada, guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR) and critical race theory (CRT). Methods A descriptive qualitative approach was employed, using semi-structured interviews with 12 researchers experienced in Black health research in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Participants were selected through a scoping review and professional networks. Interviews explored strategies for culturally responsive engagement and were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s framework. The analysis was informed by CBPR and CRT, emphasizing community involvement, intersectionality, and addressing systemic barriers. Results Five key themes emerged: (1) choosing culturally aligned research methodologies, (2) involving Black communities in research roles, (3) considerations for culturally safe data generation, (4) engaging communities in data analysis, and (5) innovative approaches to knowledge mobilization. The study advances qualitative research by providing a framework for culturally responsive approaches that emphasize trust-building, prolonged engagement, and tailoring research to reflect cultural nuances and community priorities. However, the study reflects on its reliance on researcher perspectives rather than direct community input, highlighting the need for greater community involvement in future research. Conclusion This study provides actionable insights into culturally appropriate research practices with Black communities in Western Canada. By emphasizing community involvement, cultural responsiveness, and innovative knowledge dissemination, the findings offer a framework to enhance equity and inclusivity in research. The study underscores the importance of aligning research practices with CBPR and CRT principles and calls for greater institutional support for culturally responsive approaches.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".