Community-based participatory research and decolonizing research share some recommendations for best practices for conducting research. One commonality is partnering on all stages of research; co-developing methods of data analysis is one stage with a deficit of partnering examples. We present a novel community-based and developed method for analyzing qualitative data within an Indigenous health study and explain incompatibilities of existing methods for our purposes and community needs. We describe how we explored available literature, received counsel from community Elders and experts in the field, and collaboratively developed a data analysis method consonant with community values. The method of analysis, in which interview/story remained intact, team members received story, made meaning through discussion, and generated a conceptual framework to inform intervention development, is detailed. We offer the development process and method as an example for researchers working with communities who want to keep stories intact during qualitative data analysis.

Broadening the participation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields is more than a social-justice issue; diversity is paramount to a thriving national research agenda. However, women face several obstacles to fully actualizing their research potential. Enhancing the research capacity and opportunity of women faculty requires purposeful changes in university practice. Therefore, we designed an intervention, a grant-writing bootcamp informed by self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2012), to support the participants’ feelings of relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Three grant-writing bootcamps were run over an 18-month period. Using a pre- and post-test design over the span of 1 year (and contrasting results with a comparison sample who were not part of the intervention) showed that the women participating in the grant-writing bootcamp significantly increased the number of external grants submitted, the number of proposals led as principal investigator, the number of external grants awarded, and the amount of external funding dollars awarded.

No abstract

Purpose and Objectives Academic literature indicates a need for more integration of Indigenous and colonial research systems in the design, implementation, and evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with American Indian communities. In this article, we describe ways to implement RCTs with Tribal Nations using community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles and practices. Intervention Approach We used a multiple case study research design to examine how Tribal Nations and researchers collaborated to develop, implement, and evaluate CBPR RCTs. Evaluation Methods Discussion questions within existing tribal–academic partnerships were developed to identify the epistemologic, methodologic, and analytic strengths and challenges of 3 case studies. Results We identified commonalities that were foundational to the success of CBPR RCTs with Tribal Nations. Long-standing community–researcher relationships were critical to development, implementation, and evaluation of RCTs, although what constituted success in the 3 CBPR RCTs was diverse and dependent on the context of each trial. Respect for the importance of diverse knowledge systems that account for both Indigenous knowledge and colonial science also contributed to the success of the RCTs. Implications for Public Health Tribal–academic partnerships using CBPR RCTs must include 1) establishing trusted CBPR partnerships and receiving tribal approval before embarking on RCTs with Tribal Nations; 2) balancing tribal community interests and desires with the colonial scientific rigor of RCTs; and 3) using outcomes that include tribal community concepts of success as well as outcomes found in standard colonial scientific research practices to measure the success of the CBPR RCTs.

Báa nnilah is a chronic illness self‐management program designed by and for the Apsáalooke (Crow) community. Arising from a collaboration between an Indigenous nonprofit organization and a university‐based research team, Báa nnilah's development, implementation, and evaluation have been influenced by both Indigenous and Western research paradigms (WRPs). Báa nnilah was evaluated using a randomized wait‐list control group design. In a WRP, contamination, or intervention information shared by the intervention group with the control group, is actively discouraged as it makes ascertaining causality difficult, if not impossible. This approach is not consonant with Apsáalooke cultural values that include the encouragement of sharing helpful information with others, supporting an Indigenous research paradigm's (IRP) goal of benefiting the community. The purpose of this paper is to address contamination and sharing as an area of tension between WRP and IRP. We describe how the concepts of contamination and sharing within Báa nnilah's implementation and evaluation are interpreted differently when viewed from these contrasting paradigms, and set forth a call for greater exploration of Indigenous research approaches for developing, implementing, and evaluating intervention programs in Indigenous communities. (Improving Chronic Illness Management with the Apsáalooke Nation: The Báa nnilah Project.: NCT03036189), ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03036189).