Browsing by Author "Doyle M."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human research ethics committees (HRECS) are essential in promoting our health and wellbeing.(2023-07-12) Finlay S.M.; Doyle M.; Kennedy M.The history of unethical and inhumane research conducted on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people since colonisation highlights the critical need for specific Human Research Ethics for research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. The development of Aboriginal Human Research Ethics Committees (AHRECs) has played a vital role in ensuring research is safe and delivered for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a way that protects and promotes their health and wellbeing. However, there remains a lack of appropriate and critical ethical governance for such research in areas without specific Aboriginal HRECs in each jurisdiction. This perspective argues that greater investment in state-based AHRECs and consideration of a national AHREC are essential to ensure the ongoing health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the research process -the ultimate aim of any research that involves them.Item Beyond deficit: 'strengths-based approaches' in Indigenous health research.(2021-12-15) Bryant J.; Bolt R.; Botfield J.R.; Martin K.; Doyle M.; Murphy D.; Graham S.; Newman C.E.; Bell S.; Treloar C.; Browne A.J.; Aggleton P.Health research concerning Indigenous peoples has been strongly characterised by deficit discourse-a 'mode of thinking' that is overly focused on risk behaviours and problems. Strengths-based approaches offer a different perspective by promoting a set of values that recognise the capacities and capabilities of Indigenous peoples. In this article, we seek to understand the conceptual basis of strengths-based approaches as currently presented in health research. We propose that three main approaches exist: 'resilience' approaches concerned with the personal skills of individuals; 'social-ecological' approaches, which focus on the individual, community and structural aspects of a person's environment; and 'sociocultural' approaches, which view 'strengths' as social relations, collective identities and practices. We suggest that neither 'resilience' nor 'social-ecological' approaches sufficiently problematise deficit discourse because they remain largely informed by Western concepts of individualised rationality and, as a result, rest on logics that support notions of absence and deficit. In contrast, sociocultural approaches tend to view 'strengths' not as qualities possessed by individuals, but as the structure and character of social relations, collective practices and identities. As such, they are better able to capture Indigenous ways of knowing and being and provide a stronger basis on which to build meaningful interventions.Copyright © 2021 Foundation for Sociology of Health & Illness.