University Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
Centre for Disability Research and Policy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Glob Health. 2024 Aug 3;9(8):e014433. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014433.
Indigenous communities worldwide lead calls for all evaluations of research, programmes and policies affecting their communities to reflect the values, priorities and perspectives of the Indigenous peoples and communities involved. Tools, such as the Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT), are available to assess research quality through an Indigenous cultural lens. Good evaluation requires that evaluation efforts be evaluated. We found that critical reflection on the quality of evaluations from an Indigenous perspective is largely absent from the published literature. To ensure that we strive for quality in evaluation as determined by Indigenous people with whom we work, we examined the quality of our own evaluation of an Indigenous health research collaboration by conducting a reflexive dialogue.
The QAT was used to assess our evaluation according to Indigenous health research principles. Our qualitative study used analytical coautoethnography to generate data through a series of reflexive dialogue sessions with Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the research collaboration, using the QAT criteria as discussion prompts. Our ideas and reflections were compared and contrasted through a collaborative and iterative writing process, multiple review cycles and discussions.
We documented our findings against the QAT framework. We found examples that each QAT principle had, to some extent, been adhered to, but constantly needed to assess whether the principles were fully achieved to our satisfaction. Strengths of the evaluation included being adaptable and responsive to emerging issues for the research collaboration, while areas for improvement included more Indigenous leadership of, and involvement in, evaluation.
Although reflexive evaluation practice is not always comfortable, it does provide an opportunity to generate insights for improvement. Reflecting as we did-in a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous colleagues-enabled deeper insights and meaning. We anticipate that our process models how other research in Indigenous contexts might better advance ethical, quality Indigenous research through working in collaboration with Indigenous researchers and communities.
世界各地的土著社区呼吁所有评估研究、计划和政策的工作都要反映受影响社区的土著人民和社区的价值观、优先事项和观点。现已有一些工具，如质量评估工具（QAT），可用于从土著文化视角评估研究质量。良好的评估需要对评估工作进行评估。我们发现，从土著视角对评估质量进行批判性反思在已发表文献中基本缺失。为了确保我们努力实现与我们合作的土著人民所确定的评估质量，我们通过反思性对话，对我们对土著健康研究合作的评估质量进行了检查。
使用 QAT 根据土著健康研究原则评估我们的评估。我们的定性研究使用分析性共自传体方法，通过与研究合作的土著和非土著成员进行一系列反思性对话，使用 QAT 标准作为讨论提示来生成数据。我们的想法和反思通过协作和迭代写作过程、多次审查周期和讨论进行比较和对比。
我们根据 QAT 框架记录了我们的发现。我们发现，每个 QAT 原则在某种程度上都得到了遵守，但需要不断评估这些原则是否完全符合我们的满意程度。评估的优势包括能够适应和应对研究合作中出现的新问题，而需要改进的领域包括更多的土著领导和参与评估。
尽管反思性评估实践并不总是舒适的，但它确实为改进提供了机会。正如我们在土著和非土著同事之间的伙伴关系中所做的那样进行反思，使我们能够获得更深入的见解和意义。我们预计，我们的过程模型可以为其他在土著背景下的研究如何通过与土著研究人员和社区合作来更好地推进符合伦理、高质量的土著研究提供参考。
