No abstract

This is a repository copy of On-chip hybrid superconducting-semiconducting quantum circuit.

In this article, three Métis authors, engaged in human service, share their conceptualization of cultural safety in educational settings. Their examples pertain more specifically to learning moments where Indigenous pedagogy is used to convey aspects of the colonial history and various forms of violence towards Indigenous peoples in Canada. In cases where there is a diverse or multicultural learning group, housed within a dominant Euro-Canadian culture, cultural safety can be designed to create a learning environment that promotes increased trust, sharing and exploration of “risky subjects”. This article is structured around a presentation of a pedagogy developed by Jeannine Carriere and Cathy Richardson in an Indigenous cultural sensitization training for child and youth mental health practitioners in British Columbia. Their approach encircles first-person testimony shared by Vicky Boldo, provides a structure for witnessing such testimony and then invites feedback from Vicky in relation to cultural safety for those who educate from Indigenous perspectives. The authors address the issue of backlash and White guilt that are often evoked when truths about violent histories are brought to the fore.

Background As the role of Patient and Public Involvement contributors expands to all stages of the research cycle, there is increasing demand for training that meets the needs of this diverse population. To help meet this demand the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Yorkshire and Humber, worked with members of the public to develop a bespoke training package. The University of Huddersfield’s Public Partnership Group were invited to host the training and undertake an independent evaluation. Methods Participatory action research was used to structure the evaluation, such that participants in the training and public members of the evaluation team were co-collaborators with a robust, significant and visible share in the process. This is evidenced by public team members’ roles in undertaking the majority of data gathering, including surveys, non-participant observation and interviews, and analysis, engaging in all reflective discussions, leading on producing a formal report and contributing significant sections of this paper. The evaluation was approved by a University ethics panel. Public involvement consisted of the 13 participants who received the training, and 3 of the 6 members of the evaluation team. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018. Results The evaluation found that participants understood more about the research process from attending the training, gaining greater confidence in their ability to volunteer to get involved. It also highlighted the difficulties of meeting the training needs of a diverse group with varying experiences and expectations. Skilful facilitation was needed to maintain pace, whilst engaging people with different levels of interest and knowledge. The management of the environment to maximise comfort and involvement was important. Early feedback to the delivery team enabled timely updating of the package. Involvement in the evaluation was initially daunting for the three public members of the team, but hugely enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as enriching the process and outcomes. In particular, public involvement in the analysis and interpretation stages increased the authenticity of the evaluation findings. Conclusions This evaluation validated the training package and demonstrated the value and impact of Public Involvement at all levels in research.

No abstract