well i’m pretty embarrassed to be putting this up, but it’s my record, so i’ll deal with it. after the last article review, i got a fail/resubmit so i could put this one in too. turns out i was supposed to do this within a week, but noone told me, so i got an extra week. till now. well, an hour and a half ago. i counted down hours from midnight last night, i got something done in the morning before breakfast, then ended up asleep for another few hours; cross them all off the list. by evening i’d gotten something done, but of course not enough. i talked to lisa on chat for a while, explaining all about the article, and a bit about the questions – it was good to focus my attention, enthuse me and get my brain working a bit, but didn’t really help me with the more technical questions. a bit more got done hour by hour, but i think the last hour before my midnight deadline was spent exclusively on quiet panicking and procrastination. once the time had passed i got it together for a while again, and managed to answer some of the questions in point form. that’s good, got it nearly to the minimum word count, but i really don’t think that was all the questions – maybe it was all the small, specific subquestions, but not the overall question. i don’t know, i was at the point where i couldn’t understand the questions anymore, so i submitted it. it looks good, nice footer, no longer lacking my name! maybe, had i waited till the next hour, i would’ve been able to take things in again, see what was missing, match my remaining scraps of notes to their appropriate paragraphs or questions, and maybe even make sentences of them. maybe, but maybe not. and i’ve missed too much work that i have to make up already, i have to go in in the morning. i need my sleep, and it’ll already take too long to calm down after the distressing experience of clicking send.
i still don’t understand why i’m quite so bad with this. tonight lisa suggested motor neurone dyslexia. seems i have more to learn about dyslexia, apparently it’s not just about getting letters mixed up. maybe there’s something in that, and i’ve just always been thrown off because i can spell just fine. hmmm.
Koori Action Research In Community Health
Hughes, I., Goolagong, P., Khavarpour, F. & Russell, C. 1994, ‘Koori action research in community health’, Action Research Electronic Reader, viewed 1/6/10 .
I chose this article because I’m interested in learning about critical perspectives and Participatory Action Research.
1. What is the problematic that is addressed in the research?
The problematic of this article regards the health status of Koori people on the Central Coast of NSW, which is significantly worse than the general population, the non-uptake of mainstream health services by Koori people and the lack of health services that are culturally acceptable for Koori people.
As Action Research, this project works to both understand and change this situation.
2&3. What are the outcomes from the research and how/why are they significant? What evidence does the researcher present in support of the conclusions? What has been included and what has been omitted in this report of the research, and how does this represent strengths and weaknesses in the author’s knowledge claims?
As an action research project, there are a variety of different kinds of outcomes planned. The aims of the Aboriginal Health Action Group involve assisting and promoting the development of Aboriginal health services (Hughes et al., p6) and documenting ways of doing research suited to the special needs of Koori (p6) as well as actually conducting action research in Aboriginal health and community development (p6).
Evidence of the former is outlined, including supporting and validating overworked staff of Aboriginal organisations (p8), supporting the mobile dental service (p8) and making representations to the Area Health Service on behalf of the Aboriginal Community (p8).
Ways of research are discussed throughout the article, addressing the need for research that does not demand pure objectivity (p12), Koori community control (p13), consensus decision making (p10) and an understanding and use of Koori knowledge and views of the world (p7).
At the time of writing, concrete research outcomes were underway, including a community profile, a handbook for Koori action research and a statement of local Koori health goals. When complete, these will contain much evidence of both research and action.
4. What kinds of theoretical assumptions are embedded in the article?
· Ontological assumptions: Critical – power relations can be seen at the base of things, past injustice and the dominance of others’ systems have created how the world is today. Also, indigenous worldview different from any western categories. Distinction not drawn between culture and nature (p10)
· Epistemological assumptions: Critical – the important things are making change, working for and with the affected population, seeing past the dominant ideology. There are different truths, non-positivist. Koori knowledge.
· Relationship of researcher and researched: The researchers are the community, though others are welcomed too, including University students, local doctors and Government representatives, none of whom control proceedings. The group is not exclusively Koori, but has Koori identity (p6).