Search results

For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice.

The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.

Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research.

Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research.

The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed.

What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past.

The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.

Post-disaster research presents particular challenges for the qualitative researcher due to the wider contextual demands of media attention, public debates and intense scrutiny of policy and service delivery. It highlights the importance of reflexive practice to identify and address any unintended influences on the research processes and outcomes. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this paper the authors present three case studies of post-bushfire research to demonstrate how the authors adopted a reflexive approach to address external pressures on the conduct and presentation of the research.

There are various types of reflexivity identified in the literature to identify influences on the research participant and the research findings arising, for example, from the way the researcher shapes the research findings (personal reflexivity), and the influence of the research process (epistemological reflexivity). In this paper the authors argue for a different reflexivity: one that is political and has a direct influence on the researcher.

Adoption of political reflexivity is an important tool in post-disaster research to ensure that external influences do not undermine the integrity of the research processes, findings and dissemination.

The importance of reflexivity in research is well recognized as a means of addressing power and unintended influences on research participants and research processes. The authors introduce the notion of political reflexivity to this debate in recognition of the need to address the potential for research findings and reports to be compromised by political agendas.

The overarching aim of our research is the social and environmental sustainability of cities, with a focus on ensuring the rights and needs of the children who live in them are considered in policy and planning arenas. How do we, as researchers, work ethically and effectively with children to foreground their voices and produce robust evidence to inform policies and processes which promote their wellbeing in child-friendly cities, and in line with Sustainable Development Goals? Children have the right to be heard, and their views taken seriously, in policy and planning arenas. Conducting ethical and effective child-centred research requires balancing considerations of children’s rights to genuine participation and their rights to protection at all stages of the research process. This balance requires methodological flexibility and a situated ethical approach, where researchers and participants together determine appropriate research pathways. In this chapter, the authors reflect on ethical and methodological insights gained during a decade of conducting urban-related research with children. The various projects used different methods and provided different lessons; but common to all was an understanding of the importance of relationship-building, of supportive and engaged adults, and of methods which were respectful, age/culturally appropriate and ‘fit for purpose’. These factors are crucial to ethically enable the foregrounding of children’s voices, the collection of robust data and effective dissemination of research with children.

From 2012, all high-secure forensic mental health services in England began operating a policy of confining patients to their locked bedrooms overnight to increase service efficiency and reduce costs. The purpose of this paper is to assess the views of staff and patients concerning the policy and examine the specific impact of the policy on patients.

Measures of patients’ sleep hygiene, patients’ behaviour, ward atmosphere, engagement with therapy and adverse incidents were taken both before and after the night confinement (NC) policy was implemented. Both patients and staff also expressed their views of the impact of the NC policy.

Results provide converging evidence that the impact of the NC policy on patients is negligible. There were no consistent negative effects of confining patients overnight. Rather, patients and staff were broadly positive about the impact that the practice had on patients.

Confining patients to locked bedrooms overnight does not exert any consistent influence, positive or negative, on patients’ sleep hygiene, behaviour or engagement with therapy, and patients expressed a broadly positive view of the practice of NC. Thus, a NC policy may have a contribution to make to the provision an effective high-secure mental health service.

The study provides convincing evidence that secure inpatient mental health services that are considering the adoption of a NC policy may do so without fear of a negative impact on patients.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of the experience of secure care from the patients’ perspective.

A systematic review of qualitative literature was conducted. The data was sourced from the electronic databases: PsychINFO, CINAHL, Medline and the Web of Science Core Collection using pre-defined search terms. A total of 17 studies, conducted in various countries worldwide and covering high, medium and low secure inpatient settings, were included for review. The analysis involved integrating findings from across the literature and was guided by thematic synthesis.

A total of eight themes were generated from the data, three of which provided an understanding of the experience of forensic secure care, and the remaining five themes provided an understanding of the factors which may influence the experience of secure care.

Developing understanding of patient experience can lead to service improvements, potentially impacting patients’ motivation and engagement and thus reducing admission times, potential recalls and recidivism.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic review to date to exclusively explore the broad topic of the patient experience of secure mental health care.

Considers the history of one fruit – the apple – and one vegetable – the potato. Outlines the mythological, cultural and social context in which attitudes to both of these have been shaped. Demonstrates the relevance of these histories to the study of fruit and vegetable consumption in lower income groups. Highlights the importance of psychological factors in the choice of food, and of awareness of the cultural context in which foods are consumed.