This research focused on the relationships between a national team and five project sites across Canada in planning a complex, community intervention for homeless people with mental illness called At Home/Chez Soi, which is based on the Housing First model. The research addressed two questions: (a) what are the challenges in planning? and (b) what factors that helped or hindered moving project planning forward? Using qualitative methods, 149 national, provincial, and local stakeholders participated in key informant or focus group interviews. We found that planning entails not only intervention and research tasks, but also relational processes that occur within an ecology of time, local context, and values. More specifically, the relationships between the national team and the project sites can be conceptualized as a collaborative process in which national and local partners bring different agendas to the planning process and must therefore listen to, negotiate, discuss, and compromise with one another. A collaborative process that involves power-sharing and having project coordinators at each site helped to bridge the differences between these two stakeholder groups, to find common ground, and to accomplish planning tasks within a compressed time frame. While local context and culture pushed towards unique adaptations of Housing First, the principles of the Housing First model provided a foundation for a common approach across sites and interventions. The implications of the findings for future planning and research of multi-site, complex, community interventions are noted.

For decades, Indigenous experiences of mass killings, atrocities, ethnic cleansing, and assimilation have been marginalized from genocide studies due to the ways in which knowledge is constructed in the field, specifically in terms of its focus on definitions and prototype-based conceptions. This article argues that these exclusions are not merely owed to discourses internal to genocide studies, but are affirmed by conventional library terminologies for the purposes of knowledge organization and information retrieval in the form of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and classification, as applied to books regarding genocidal colonial encounters with Indigenous Peoples. These headings largely exhibit euphemistic tendencies and omissions that often fail to reflect the contents of the materials they seek to describe, not only impeding retrieval of books on this subject, but also their incorporation into current scholarship. To determine the extent to which the assignment of LCSH and call numbers corresponded reasonably to the stated intent of the authors, searches in OCLC’s global WorldCat catalogue were conducted for books related to the Library of Congress subject “Indians of North America” and some variation of the keywords genocide, holocaust, or extermination, yielding a list of 34 titles. The subject headings and classification designations assigned to these books were then analyzed, with particular attention paid to euphemisms for genocide, colonial narratives, the exercise of double standards when compared to non-Indigenous genocides, or outright erasure of genocide-related content. The article argues that Western epistemologies in both genocide studies and library science have marginalized Indigenous genocides, reproducing barriers to discovery and scholarship, and contributing to a social discourse of Native American Holocaust denial. Instead a pragmatic view in library science is proposed, in which claims of genocide on the part of authors are taken as given and which would recognize the legitimacy of Indigenous perspectives concerning their relationship to land and how processes of assimilation (such as Canada’s residential school system) were consistent with Raphael Lemkin’s original definition of genocide. It argues that enabling our ability to name and discuss genocide in North America can contribute to a more honest reckoning with our history and hence the basis for reconciliation and social justice.

Planning the implementation of evidence-based mental health services entails commitment to both rigour and community relevance, which entails navigating the challenges of collaboration between professionals and community members in a planning environment which is neither 'top-down' nor 'bottom-up'. This research focused on collaboration among different stakeholders (e.g. researchers, service-providers, persons with lived experience [PWLE]) at five project sites across Canada in the planning of At Home/Chez Soi, a Housing First initiative for homeless people with mental health problems. The research addressed the question of what strategies worked well or less well in achieving successful collaboration, given the opportunities and challenges within this complex 'hybrid' planning environment. Using qualitative methods, 131 local stakeholders participated in key informant or focus group interviews between October 2009 and February 2010. Site researchers identified themes in the data, using the constant comparative method. Strategies that enhanced collaboration included the development of a common vision, values and purpose around the Housing First approach, developing a sense of belonging and commitment among stakeholders, bridging strategies employed by Site Co-ordinators and multiple strategies to engage PWLE. At the same time, a tight timeline, initial tensions, questions and resistance regarding project and research parameters, and lack of experience in engaging PWLE challenged collaboration. In a hybrid planning environment, clear communication and specific strategies are required that flow from an understanding that the process is neither fully participatory nor expert-driven, but rather a hybrid of both.

Over the past decade, the field of Library and Information Studies (LIS) has promoted cultural competence as a means of improving services to multicultural or traditionally underserved populations. However, critical LIS scholars have noted that cultural competence and diversity are viewed predominately as a matter of skill acquisition on the part of the library worker, rather than as one that involves a critique of the forces of structural racism, discrimination, and colonialism in society. In response, this paper proposes adapting frameworks from other professions for the library context: Multi-Dimensional Cultural Competence (MDCC) from counselling psychology, and cultural safety (CS) from Indigenous nursing. The former views cultural competence in terms of diversity factors, components, and multiple levels of foci, while the second is premised in postcolonial understandings and respect for Indigenous knowledges. The proposed synthesis, Multi-Dimensional Cultural Safety (MDCS), is established by first identifying the epistemological and ideological shortcomings of cultural competence, focusing on the need for institutional critiques as well as a recognition of racialization and power structures. Next, the two existing frameworks are explained in terms of their origins, content, and professional contexts, noting how each addresses the shortcomings of cultural competence as well as each other’s shortcomings. The proposed framework is then elaborated upon in an LIS context and illustrated with hypothetical examples.

The student sitting next to me in the University of Winnipeg’s Aboriginal Student Services Centre listens respectfully as I demonstrate the library catalog and databases, then turns to me. “It’s interesting,” he says. “The way the university teaches us, by explaining. It’s not like when me and my father would go into the bush.”