Community‐based participatory research (CBPR) is generally understood as a process by which decision‐making power and ownership are shared between the researcher and the community involved, bi‐directional research capacity and co‐learning are promoted, and new knowledge is co‐created and disseminated in a manner that is mutually beneficial for those involved. Within the field of Canadian geography we are seeing emerging interest in using CBPR as a way of conducting meaningful and relevant research with Indigenous communities. However, individual interpretations of CBPR's tenets and the ways in which CBPR is operationalized are, in fact, highly variable. In this article we report the findings of an exploratory qualitative case study involving semi‐structured, open‐ended interviews with Canadian university‐based geographers and social scientists in related disciplines who engage in CBPR to explore the relationship between their conceptual understanding of CBPR and their applied research. Our findings reveal some of the tensions for university‐based researchers concerning CBPR in theory and practice.
Ethical tensions exist regarding the value and practice of acknowledging Indigenous contributions in community-based participatory research (CBPR). Semistructured phone interviews with researchers documented their perspectives on authorship in the scholarly dissemination of their community-based participatory Indigenous research. Thematic analysis resulted in four key ideas: (1) current practices regarding methods of acknowledging community contributions; (2) requirements for shared authorship with individual versus collective/community partners; (3) benefits to sharing authorship with collective/community partners; and (4) risks to sharing authorship with collective/community partners. Findings suggest an emerging but inconsistent practice.
Aboriginal Canadians experience a disproportionate burden of ill-health and have endured a history of racism in accessing and using health care. Meanwhile, this population is rapidly growing, resulting in an urgent need to facilitate better quality of living and dying in many ways, including through enhancing (cultural) access to palliative care. In this article, we report the findings from a qualitative case study undertaken in rural British Columbia, Canada through exploring the perceptions of Aboriginal palliative care in a region identified as lacking in formal palliative care services and having only a limited Aboriginal population. Using interview data collected from 31 formal and informal palliative care providers (May-September 2008), we thematically explore not only the existing challenges and contradictions associated with the prioritisation and provision of Aboriginal palliative care in the region in terms of (in)visibility but also identify the elements necessary to enhance such care in the future. The implications for service providers in rural regions are such that consideration of the presence of small, and not always 'visible', populations is necessary; while rural care providers are known for their resilience and resourcefulness, increased opportunities for meaningful two-way knowledge exchange with peers and consultation with experts cannot be overlooked. Doing so will serve to enhance culturally accessible palliative care in the region in general and for Aboriginal peoples specifically. This analysis thus contributes to a substantial gap in the palliative care literature concerning service providers' perceptions surrounding Aboriginal palliative care as well as Aboriginal peoples' experiences with receiving such care. Given the growing Aboriginal population and continued health inequities, this study serves to not only increase awareness but also create better living and dying conditions in small but incremental ways.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.