Case story

The CRCAH facilitated development approach to research

To commission new research in each of its program areas, the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH) arranged an ‘industry roundtable’ process in which people came together to identify research priorities around the most pressing needs in their organisations and communities. Roundtables were attended by representatives from community-controlled and mainstream health care providers, relevant government agencies, health care funders and peak bodies, and interested researchers and community leaders. CRCAH staff, and often the CEO, facilitated the process creating a safe environment for research priorities to be talked through in a way that reflected both community needs and government expectations.

Through this sharing process, research priorities in each program area were identified. The priorities were taken back to the CRCAH Board (headed by an independent Indigenous chair with a majority of Indigenous members) and ranked according to both the CRCAH’s research agenda and to where the research could have most impact.

The Social and Emotional Wellbeing (SEWB) program used a roundtable process… we commissioned an Aboriginal woman to carry out a literature review that set out some of the key issues and history of research in SEWB. People at the roundtable were keen to… focus on a more holist approach… We talked about how to support resilience, emotional, physical and spiritual/cultural wellbeing of individuals, families and communities. Fifteen priority areas for change were identified. From those we set seven research priorities (Vanessa Harris, Program Manager, CRCAH and The Lowitja Institute).

The CRCAH then facilitated the development of research proposals to address the priority issues.

The facilitated development process is not easy for researchers – you need to respond to a research focus defined by representatives of end-users and endorsed in general terms by the CRC Board, and it can be a real challenge to develop workable questions matched with effective methods… But in practice, it is really helpful and the ground rules make it positive and safe for all participants, including the nervous researchers.

What’s great about it is that you can design and conduct a project confident that you are tackling something that not only needs to be done, but also has an interested constituency and a high probability (assuming you do it well) of being influential in the policy and practice arenas… (Judith Dwyer, Program Leader, the Lowitja Institute and Flinders University).

The CRCAH found that doing more work to identify and develop priorities with industry, community and other key stakeholders early in the process, and working closely with project teams, helped knowledge exchange and capacity development, and coordination of effort across program areas. The facilitated development approach helped to link people into research partnerships and supported collaboration. It has led to higher quality and more strategic research that:

• is community driven and reflects the priorities of Indigenous people
• is based on collaboration, not competition
• provides mutual benefits to Indigenous communities and researchers.

An independent evaluation of the CRCAH’s work and impact was carried out in 2009–10. This research approach has had a positive impact on the relationship between Aboriginal people, governments and service providers.

We know that nationally research in the past hasn’t often been done for the best outcomes for Aboriginal people themselves… this process puts that back into Aboriginal hands (Angelina Tabuteau-Moore, PhD scholar and Regional Aboriginal Coordinator, Albury NSW TAFE, at the Chronic Diseases Self-Management Project Quality Assurance roundtable).

Key messages for researchers:

• When Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge practices come together in research, the rules of engagement, evidence and validation need to be questioned and negotiated.
• Collaborative, participatory and multidisciplinary approaches are more likely to result in acceptable, practical research outcomes, compared with approaches where the researcher ‘informs’ or ‘consults’ research participants.
• Research approaches that have the potential to empower research participants align with the Indigenous Research Reform Agenda.

For further details see the CRCAH approach to research.