Content uploaded by Taiwo O. Olubanwo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Taiwo O. Olubanwo on Jul 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 1
Critical analysis of Public Health Researches involving
Aboriginal People: A review of research paper titled, “A
clash of paradigms? Western and indigenous views on
health research involving Aboriginal peoples”
By Olubanwo, Taiwo O. BMLS/AMLSCN, MLS, PhD Student
November 2014
Abstract
This paper is a critique of a research paper titled, “A clash of paradigms? Western and indigenous
views on health research involving Aboriginal peoples” by Campbell TD (2014).
The content of this paper will be focused on the strength, value, feasibility, weakness, limitation,
validation or the authenticity of the aforementioned article by comparing same with other similar
research paper, journal, discussion, research work done by different authors. The author of the
research paper did a commendable work as many other experts shared same view. Popular
opinion is that, the involvement of aboriginals in health researchers conducted in their
community will make a positive impact in the outcome of the research. This popular view is also
elucidated in the application of Aboriginal Knowledge Translation which helps build trust
amongst other relevance. It is further stressed that, though the application of ownership, control,
access and possession of data (OCAP) principle is useful yet care needs to be taken in order not
to overrule the efficacy of traditional standards in scientific researches. In aboriginal
communities the application of revised Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) guidelines
stands out to be the most recommended as same is formed by collective effort of the Aboriginal
stake holders and CIHR governing bodies where major elements of OCAP principle is also
considered.
Key words: ‘Helicopter’ research, OCAP, CIHR, Health research, Aboriginal people
Introductions
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 2
Health research involving aboriginal is a systematic process in which knowledge is
generated as a result of answers to questions related to health issues in the aboriginal
communities. The result or outcome of the research helps in reviewing policy that is aimed at
health promotion saddled towards quality of life in the scientific community. In the light of the
health research involving indigenous communities, Campbell (2014) worked on the disparities
that exist between the western and indigenous views concerning health research involving
Aboriginal people. This paper is a critique of a research paper titled “A clash of paradigms?
Western and indigenous views on health research involving aboriginal peoples” (Campbell,
2014). In this paper, the line of reasoning of the author of the above titled research work will be
concisely explored in order to pinpoint the intent of the author before focusing on reviewing and
analyzing the strength, limitation or weakness of the research paper.
The importance of critiquing the aforementioned research paper is that, it helps determine
if the work is grounded and the findings have strong basis that is applicable in practice.
Analyzing and reviewing evidence based work encompasses the determination of its value,
feasibility and clinical applicability (Potter & Perry, 2009). In order to validate the findings of
the author, expert opinion from related article, paper and research work will be considered in this
paper. This paper will first briefly outline the essential elements of the aforementioned research
paper by using the thinker’s guide to analytical thinking approach which stresses that, an essay or
article could be understood by critiquing the author’s line of reasoning in view of understanding
the intent of the work (Elder, Richard 2012 p 28, 29).
Critical analysis of the Author’s intents
Using the thinker’s guide – eight basic structures that defines author’s line of reasoning
which is an intellectual standard approach to understanding an essay as elucidated by Elder and
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 3
Richard (2012), below are the essential elements of the research paper that will be critiqued in
this paper: The main purpose of the article to be critiqued is the exploration of the concerns and
challenges of data management and data ownership in view of health research conducted in
aboriginal communities in Canada by considering the contrasting view between ownership,
control, access and possession of data (OCAP) principles and traditional western views of
scientific research coupled with their likely effects on the outcome of the research. (Campbell,
2014).
The major question that the author is addressing has to do with the implication of OCAP
principle if it is aimed at usurping the traditional ideology of scientific inquiry as they have a
restrictive concept that may impair research methodologies based on the study population instead
of the research objectives. The most valuable knowledge derived from the article is, research
with indigenous population in Canada has often been conducted by researchers who had
insignificant knowledge of the scientific community, hence ‘helicopter’ research, which
benefitted the researcher but not the population of studies. The author also pinpointed a pertinent
reason why there might be conflict of view between the western and indigenous people by
affirming that, the aim of research with Aboriginal is self-determinant but from Western view it
may vary from awareness and information dissemination to policy bedrocks.
The author submitted that there is need to avoid harms previously caused by ‘Helicopter’
researches by not only considering OCAP principle as desired aboriginals stakeholders but by
implementing guidelines collectively developed by Canadian Institute of Health Research
(CIHR) and the Aboriginal stakeholders which is aimed eradicating unethical and culturally
insensitive research approach involving the Aboriginal people (Campbell 2014). The reason why
Campbell (2014) concluded on the relevance of the application of the collectively revised CIHR
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 4
guidelines is that the revised guideline is able to address the indigenous research based goals
which may vary from finding a quick and pragmatic solution to the community challenges to the
provision of concepts that is aimed at stimulating social changes in order to improve the
community healthy lifestyle instead of focusing on the use of restrictive OCAP principle which
is a political response of the Aboriginals (Campbell 2014).
The Assembly of First Nations wants researchers to use the Ownership, Control, Access
and Possession (OCAP) principles in the research methodology involving their community. By
implementing only OCAP principle where the researcher needs to take permission from the
Aboriginal stakeholders - the research goal may be compromised since the principle is restrictive
as same is propounded as a result of the distrust that the scientific community has towards most
researchers that comes from outside their community (Campbell 2014). The author may have
believed that the ‘helicopter’ researcher may be subjective in their methodologies as it may be
for personal gain against the real expected reason for health research which should be aimed at
health promotion in the community of studies. Yet, there is no outlined facts about the reasons
why the researcher are fond of the ‘helicopter’ approach- may be the aboriginal have not been
cooperative in the past which may have led to the researcher deliberately not carry them along in
the process.
The politics around the development of OCAP Principle- the chief player of the
guidelines may have other motive apart from the one contained in OCAP templates. The motive
may be for self-enrichment which is corruption since the research outcome may be deemed
unsatisfactory by the Aboriginal stakeholders if void of OCAP principles- the implementation of
this principle does required the researcher to consult the key players among the stake holders
which may be expensive and time consuming as will be outlined later in this paper. Another
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 5
challenge that could occur which the author is taking for granted is that the chief may use the
OCAP to manipulate the result of the research since the research work has to be in collaboration
with their cultural policy. The outcome may be manipulated in favour of the community and the
heads takes the lion share of the proceeds of the research.
(a) If we accept the line of reasoning of the author, then the research work will be effective,
since the community is highly culturally sensitive and traditionally inclined coupled, putting
these into consideration will help the outcome of the research to be applicable in practice.
Respecting the view of the community helps the researcher gain trust and hence gets their
cooperation in sharing vital information that will help the course of the work.
(b) If the authors reasoning is ignored then, the outcome of health research involving the
aboriginal may be void of originality and feasibility. The implication of this is that the health
sector will be misinformed – this misinformation will greatly mar the health policy that may be
made as a result of the outcome of the research, thus causing financial burden to Government as
community health promotion goal is misplaced.
The Author is looking at the disagreement between western and aboriginal perspective on
health research approach with the belief that the disparity could be as a result of contrasting goals
of research that exist between the two.
Critical Analysis of the Feasibility and Viability of the Author’s Research
The author did an excellent reflection on the history of researchers who had worked in
aboriginal community and the reason why their approach is termed ‘helicopter’ research in the
sight of the community. The author added that, on the part of the researchers, their insufficient
knowledge of the community coupled with lack of the involvement of the population in the
methodology led to distrust that the aboriginal has towards the researcher, hence the initiation of
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 6
OCAP principle (Campbell 2014). Flicker and Worthington (2012) confirmed Campbell’s
assertion by outlining the inevitability of trust and relationship-building among study participants
and the community in view of collaborative research adding that aboriginal people are often
happy when involved in research process no matter how little but relevant, as they also believe
that they don’t necessarily have to be fully involve in the clinical expertise but they want
recognition and wishes their voice counts – their involvement fosters trust which enhances
relationship building between them and the experts.
The author (Campbell, 2014) did a very good job by outlining the relevance and
importance of OCAP principle coupled with the application of Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR) Guidelines that has been revised to include aboriginal intents for Health
Research Involving Aboriginal People in indigenous research methodologies, evidenced by the
veritable outcome of an Aboriginal based research work conducted on TB Transmission project
authored by Boffa, King, McMullin and Longand (2011). The latter stressed that despite the cost
implication of the involvement of the stake holders such as Aboriginal researchers, the
development of Provincial Network Committees (PNCs), and communications with First Nations
Chiefs and Council in view of integrating the OCAP principles with the traditional research
guidelines, yet the research expense was worthwhile due to strong support of the Aboriginal
people (Boffa, King, McMullin, & Long 2011).
Though the author showed keen interest in the studies, but she does fails to explore the
cost implication and time constrain that may occur in the process of coordinating Aboriginal
stake holders and political challenges associated with OCAP principle as noted by Boffa, King,
McMullin, and Long (2011). This is a limitation and a weakness of the research work though
negligible compared to the merit of the former principle since the revised CIHR guideline has in
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 7
its new edition- some perspective of OCAP principles in view of discouraging or eradicating
what is term to be ‘Helicopter’ researches.
The writer also immaculately coined the intent of the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR) guidelines for researcher interested in working with aboriginal population by
elucidating that the guideline is aimed at promoting health through research that is congruent
with aboriginal believes, culture and traditions. In the guideline, aboriginal and western scientific
perspective were considered by promoting ethics that aid rather than suppressing research and
thus balancing collective and individual interest according to CIHR (2007) as cited in Campbell
(2014).
This intent is also supported in a paper on ‘Public Health Research Involving Aboriginal
Peoples: Research Ethics Board Stakeholders’ Reflections on Ethics Principles and Research
Processes’ by Flicker and Worthington (2012). The duo emphasize on the need for community
involvement in Aboriginal research and recognition of varied interests in the population,
recognition of the Indigenous leaders including ethics authorities and acknowledgement of the
officials and custom based policy, involvement of stake holders of relevance to the research,
respect for community traditions and codes of practice, community and researcher benefits from
research, commitment to community oriented research by offering the community the
opportunity to participate in data interpretation and review of research outcomes before
finalizing publications as enumerated in the documents developed out of collaborative process
including National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO)’s OCAP (Ownership, Control,
Access, Possession) Principles document, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
(CIHR) Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People In December 2010 (Flicker
and Worthington 2012 p 19).
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 8
The feasibility and viability of the author’s expression on the relevance of the revised
CIHR guideline is also supported by three researchers, Estey, Smylie and Macaulay (2009) in
their work on ‘Aboriginal Knowledge Translation’ termed Aboriginal KT. In their work, it was
stressed that “ as policy-makers, it is important to integrate this knowledge into existing policies
and programs, and apply same to develop new programs aimed at improving the well-being of
the indigenous peoples’ in Canada” (Estey et al., 2009, p. 4). In same work, it was articulated that
Canada's Indigenous Peoples are Canada's First Peoples and for this reason, it is pertinent to
involve them in any research involving their communities by adhering to the ethical and cultural
guidelines elucidated by national organizations in the reviewed CIHR, which is a new version
where Tri-council Policy Statement advocates ‘4R’, ‘respect, reciprocity, relevance, and
responsibility’ within same premise of research (Estey et al., 2009).
According to Graham and Tetroe (2007) in their work on ‘How to Translate Health
Research Knowledge into Effective Healthcare Action’ the purpose of knowledge translation, KT
was affirmed to be aimed at improving the healthcare system and health of Canadians as the
knowledge derived from the research is shared with the beneficiary of the work in a simple
manner before working towards its publication – this action does embraces the inclusion of the
scientific communities which helps the outcome to be efficient (Graham and Tetroe 2007). This
same idea was supported in another work on ‘Knowledge translation in health care: moving from
evidence to practice’ by Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, (2009).
Another important findings presented by the author (Campbell, 2014) is that goal of
research in the sight of aboriginal is self-determination which may be in contrast with western
views as their goals may range from information dissemination to decision making in view of
health promotion in the community (Smith, 2005 as cited in Campbell, 2014). This finding helps
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 9
showcase the feasibility and the strength of the author’s intent as same is supported by Reading
and Wien (2009). According to the experts, “Self-determination is the most important
determinant of health among Aboriginal peoples as it influences all other determinants including
education, housing, safety, and health opportunities” (Reading & Wien, 2009, p 24).
Conclusion
The effort of the author (Campbell, 2014) on the research involving the aboriginal in
elucidating the contrasting view that exist between the western and aboriginal communities is
indeed impressive and commendable. The outcome is feasible and applicable in practice as
evidenced by other expert’s opinion in supporting the authors work. Most of the experts are of
the assertion that research methodologies should be of collective agreement between the
researcher and the scientific communities, hence the need for trust.
The author was also careful by not making it appeared to all researchers that it is a must
for them to adhere to the newly revised CIHR guidelines but does clarified for a research
involving Aboriginal to be funded by CIHR regulatory bodies within the policy valid period, the
research methodologies have to strictly adhere to the guidelines as contained in the collectively
updated CIHR which is aimed at the betterment of the indigenous community healthy lifestyle
(CHIR 2007 as cited in Campbell, 2014).
References
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 10
Boffa, J., King, M., McMullin, K., & Long, R. (2011). A process for the inclusion of Aboriginal
People in health research: Lessons from the Determinants of TB Transmission project.
Social Science & Medicine, 72(5), 733-738.
Campbell, T. (2014). A clash of paradigms? Western and indigenous views on health research
involving Aboriginal peoples. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 39-43.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). Analyzing the logic of an article, essay or chapter. The thinker's
guide to analytic thinking: how to take thinking apart and what to look for when you do:
the elements of thinking and the standards they must meet (pp. 28-29). Dillon Beach, CA:
Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Estey, E., Kmetic, A., & Reading, J. (2010). Thinking about aboriginal KT: learning from the
Network Environments for Aboriginal Health Research British Columbia (NEARBC).
Canadian Journal Of Public Health, 101(1), 83-86
Estey E., Smylie J., & Macaulay A. (2009). “Aboriginal Knowledge Translation: Understanding
and respecting the distinct needs of Aboriginal communities in research” for the CIHR -
Institute of Aboriginal Peoples' Health, p3, 4.
Flicker, S., & Worthington, C. (2012). Public health research involving aboriginal peoples:
research ethics board stakeholders' reflections on ethics principles and research processes.
Canadian Journal Of Public Health, 103(1), 19-22. (21)
Graham, I., & Tetroe, J. (2007). How to translate health research knowledge into effective
healthcare action. Healthcare Quarterly, 10(3), 20-22.
Potter, P. A., & Perry, A. G. (2009). Fundamentals of nursing (7th ed.). St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby
Elsevier, 77, 80.
CRITIQUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVOLVING ABORIGINAL 11
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). (2010). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Reading, C.L. & Wien, F. (2009). Health Inequalities and Social Determinants of Aboriginal
Peoples' Health. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal
Health, 24
Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., & Graham, I. D. (2009). Knowledge translation in health care: moving
from evidence to practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell/BMJ