Enhancing Quality in the Research

Throughout this project I was constantly considering how to enhance the quality, not only of the findings, but of the entire research process. In quantitative designs, high- quality research is largely determined by the extent to which a study achieves reliability and validity. In Health Sciences, the gold standard of these designs is the randomized- controlled trial (RCT), where every factor is strictly controlled, from the research setting to the subjects involved. Attaining quality in qualitative research is much less clear-cut; reliability and validity do not fit well with constructivist assumptions, yet other standards

must be achieved to distinguish a good study from a bad one. While some researchers have attempted to create a list of such standards (e.g., Caelli, Ray, & Mill, 2003; Morrow, 2005), others have argued that such a list is limiting and cannot encompass the entire spectrum that is qualitative research (Tracy, 2010). Rather than limiting this discussion to the criteria outlined in one of these lists, which largely stem from Western knowledge systems, I instead turn to the CBPR literature to examine the factors that define good quality research within Indigenous communities. In this section I will briefly outline a few of these factors, and review how this thesis – especially the methods that were chosen - aimed to fulfill them.

To me, the first sign that this was high quality qualitative research was that everything came from, or was developed with, the community. According to Brant Castellano (2004), “Aboriginal people have a right to participate as principles or partners in research that generates knowledge affecting their culture, identity and well-being” (p. 98). The issues that we addressed and the objectives of this study were developed in conjunction with SOAHAC, making the research meaningful and specific to the local community. Moreover, the methods we chose to employ in our study were developed in collaboration with SOAHAC. As Cochran et al. (2008) have explained, “it is important to consider the ways of knowing that exist in indigenous communities when developing research methods” (p. 22). The present study was guided by local IK; the painting activity and sharing circles, as well as the activities throughout the BLE, stemmed from this knowledge system, and were considered to be appropriate by all team members involved.

Related to the development of meaningful research and appropriate research methods is the importance of strong, trusting relationships between the researchers and

the community involved. A plethora of researchers have expressed the need for trust in the research process (e.g., Brant Castellano, 2004; Cochran et al., 2008; Durie, 2004; Kovach, 2009). As I explained previously in this chapter, the present study would not have been possible without a certain level of trust between SOAHAC, myself, and the other university researchers. This trust was established prior to the present research study, but was further strengthened in every meeting, through respectful conversations and consideration of everyone’s ideas. Moreover, as outlined previously, our research followed the principles of OCAP to ensure that the study was conducted in a good way.

The present study also focused on strengths, which is an important component of high quality research with Indigenous communities. As Cochran et al. (2008) so

eloquently stated, “the most insensitive research is the perpetuation of the myth that indigenous people represent a “problem” to be solved and that they are passive “objects” that require assistance from external experts” (p. 22). Through engaging collaboratively with our community partners, and focusing on good health rather than bad, we aimed to emphasize the community’s strengths and build positive community capacity.

Another factor that contributed to the quality of this thesis is the fact that I have aimed to be transparent, explaining the methods clearly and reflecting upon what worked well as well as the challenges that we faced. In describing good quality qualitative research, Tracy (2010) labeled this criteria as ‘sincerity’, defining it as “research [that] is marked by honesty and transparency about the researcher’s biases, goals, and foibles as well as how these played a role in the methods, joys, and mistakes of the research” (p. 841). While Tracey’s (2010) criteria are based upon Western ways of thinking, and were not created to guide good quality research with Indigenous communities, I think sincerity

is an important criteria of the present study, especially given my critical constructivist stance. In the present chapter as well as in Chapter 1 of this thesis, I introduced myself and described my own assumptions coming into this project. Throughout the rest of this thesis I continue to be transparent in describing the successes, challenges, and tensions that arose within this study.

Finally, in addition to incorporating my own voice within this thesis, I strove to incorporate the voices of all those involved, especially those of the children. A number of studies and reports have highlighted the importance of incorporating First Nations

children in conversations about their own health (e.g., Blackstock, Bruyere, & Moreau, 2006; RCAP, 1996). By including quotes from all of the children involved, as well as photographs of their paintings, I aimed to more fully convey the children’s perceptions, and to show, rather than tell, what we found. These quotes and pictures are intertwined with detailed descriptions of the contexts in which the children spoke, as well as my own – and our research team’s – interpretations of the main results. By involving children in this research, and creating spaces for their voices using quotes and paintings, I aimed to further enhance the quality of this thesis.