“It puts a human face on the researched” – A qualitative evaluation of an Indigenous health research governance model

Abstract

Objective: To describe the Inala Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Jury for Health Research, and evaluate its usefulness as a model of Indigenous research governance within an urban Indigenous primary health care service from the perspectives of jury members and researchers. Methods: Informed by a phenomenological approach and using narrative inquiry, a focus group was conducted with jury members and key informant interviews were undertaken with researchers who had presented to the Community Jury in its first year of operation. Results: The jury was a site of identity work for researchers and jury members, providing an opportunity to observe and affirm community cultural protocols. Although researchers and jury members had differing levels of research literacy, the jury processes enabled respectful communication and relationships to form, which positively influenced research practice, community aspirations and clinical care. Discussion: The jury processes facilitated transformative research practice among researchers and resulted in transference of power from researchers to the jury members, to the mutual benefit of both. Conclusion: Ethical Indigenous health research practice requires an engagement with Indigenous peoples and knowledge at the research governance level, not simply as subjects or objects of research.

Understanding health talk in an urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare service: a cross-sectional study

“…Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the study and their right to not participate or withdraw at any time without affecting the care provided at the Clinic in any way. The Inala Community Jury for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (Bond et al 2016) provided community support for the study. As a gesture of reciprocity, each participant was offered a pen inscribed with the CoE's name and telephone number, and included in a healthy food hamper draw, drawn at the recruitment of every 25th participant.…”

Closing the gap between rhetoric and practice in strengths‐based approaches to Indigenous public health: a qualitative study

“…This research partnership was approved by the Board of Inala Wangarra, and updates were provided to the Board at key points throughout the study. The Inala Community Jury for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the Inala community) provided community approval for the research to progress 17 . Ethics approval was granted by the University of Queensland (Approval Number 2018000869).…”

Computerised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health assessments in primary health care research

“…After grappling with these tensions in discussions with my research advisors, I decided to conduct the epidemiological investigation described in Chapter 8, and this decision was endorsed by the Inala Community Jury for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (ICJ). 132 Research using CCM may produce results that do not satisfy lifeworld participants or systems world participants. The latter may be conflicted by their need to be accountable to their institutions through publications and other outputs.…”

“…132 Members of the ICJ were also considered potential interviewees, and ultimately five ICJ members participated in this study. The choice of participants was also guided by the potential for participants to be users of computerised HA based research data to improve their service delivery, and/or apply for grant funding.…”

“…This research, involving community consultation to identify community health and research priorities, builds on previous efforts at the IIHS to decolonise research processes including the formation of the ICJ to review IIHS research proposals. 132 …”