Thread by @EvaAlisic, Thanks to the 79 people who have participated in "Making our Daily [...]

Thanks to the 79 people who have participated in "Making our Daily Research Practice More Inclusive" today!

So much food for thought.

Here’s a bit of a thread on the background & learnings so far (1/?) #InclusiveResearch2020 #AcademicTwitter #PhDChat

If you want some non-Twitter reading on this: here is our commentary paper on equity & inclusion in clinical practice guidelines in @Psychotraumatol https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008198.2020.1833657#.X9H7m_fXE3s.twitter (2/?)

Working towards inclusive and equitable trauma treatment guidelines: a child-centered reflection

(2020). Working towards inclusive and equitable trauma treatment guidelines: a child-centered reflection. European Journal of Psychotraumatology: Vol. 11, No. 1, 1833657.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008198.2020.1833657#.X9H7m_fXE3s.twitter

It all started with a project on #childtrauma treatment recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. These guidelines are important: they inform practitioners, clients, professional associations, regulators, insurers, etc. (3/?)

We looked into 14 sets of guidance documents around the world. And during the process we got more and more interested in 1) the actual guideline development process, as well as 2) the evidence base that is selected to inform the recommendations (4/?)

Regarding Voice:
We looked at whether young people were invited as guideline committee members or been actively consulted in another way. Across the 14 guidelines, we didn’t find one that had children’s direct voice represented :( (6/?)

That doesn’t mean children’s voice wasn’t there at all; there will have been child practitioners and possibly parent-consumers. But no direct opportunity for children or young people to be heard. (7/?)

On cultural background:
We looked at the evidence base underpinning the @ISTSSnews guidelines – recent, state-of-the-art, rigorous, international guidelines. (8/?)

First of all, I should say that our team used some pretty crude measures here… (9/?)

One was whether studies took place in high- or low/middle-income countries (HIC vs LMIC).
72% (n=44) were in HIC.
I was not too surprised by this picture to be honest.
However, it is deceptive… (10/?)

To achieve parity according to population size, taking those n=44 in HIC, we should have had 231 in LMICs.
Not 17…
(11/?)

Another important dimension is: who is actually running these studies?
Lead authors drive design, methods, interpretation. We saw a dominant lens here: white & Western (12/?) #AcademicTwitter #phdchat

Which gets even stronger if we look directly at the numbers of children involved (since sample size is important in meta-analyses informing #guidelines).
Our current evidence underpinning the guidelines is totally dominated by white Western lead authors. (13/?)

A 'strong' white Western lens is an understatement..
(14/? So many!)

We revere evidence-based practice. But what if the evidence base itself is not inclusive? https://trauma-recovery.net/2020/12/08/we-revere-evidence-based-practice-but-what-if-the-evidence-base-itself-is-not-inclusive/ (15/?)

We revere evidence-based practice. But what if the evidence base itself is not inclusive?

Photo by Mario Gogh on Unsplash Are you engaged in research? Take one of the projects you’re involved in… Is the team lead a white person or a person of color? How about the rest of the team,…

https://trauma-recovery.net/2020/12/08/we-revere-evidence-based-practice-but-what-if-the-evidence-base-itself-is-not-inclusive/

This lens is the result of 1000s of small & big decisions in the whole research pipeline from design to dissemination. In the commentary we wrote suggestions for future guideline committees but what can do ourselves on a daily basis? (16/? I think I’ll stop counting now)
#ecrchat

All the ‘baby steps’ ( @NancyKA's words) add up over time, also in a positive way…

Do we seek out diverse authors to read & cite? Who do we consult when designing research? Do we invite them on the team? Who do we invite for talks/seminars? Where and how do we publish?

For example (definitively personal learning here) citing researchers in theses/publications means we give them more prominence over others. Prominence and therefore opportunities: more citations --> better track record --> more invitations/grants/’voice’.

So in the Zoom convo’s today, we talked about those elements. Some of my initial takeaways are around:
- Having small team conversations about the team’s anti-racism policies & practices
- Literature we put on student reading lists
- ...

Sidenote: I LOVE the nounproject for icons. But somehow teams are either white or black but not mixed… (though you can have a team with different suits)

(insights cont’d):
- Having diverse role models in senior positions is so important for the next generation
- What research participants are actually getting from our research
- Building long-term relations with co-researchers with lived experience (rather than project-oriented)

In social/personality psychology there is a list of papers by Black, Indigenous and People of Color (thanks @joannemchung for sharing): https://bit.ly/2KfhGIA Make sure to cite them if you’re working in the same field

Here is another useful one: a recent Lancet & @Mental_Elf panel discussion on mental health research & racism:
(thanks @joannemouthaan)

I also realised I should put an Acknowledgement of Country on my blog. I work and live on the unceded lands of the Wurundjeri people. I often do verbal acknowledgements but hadn’t thought of my blog yet – a blind spot…

These were just a few examples! I’ll share a summary of the Zoom session suggestions with links on my blog when it’s ready (trying not to add another deadline to my list :) ). Once again thanks heaps to everyone who was involved in this project and conversation. Let's keep at it

Latest Threads Unrolled: