JCPSLP November 2016

PAR has been described as a “messy process” (Primavera & Brodsky, 2004), requiring participants to not only conduct the research, but to learn from it and adapt as it progresses. The face-to-face meetings were a vehicle through which to address some of this uncertainty, and aimed to assist PRG members become more comfortable about this “messiness”. At one of these meetings, the PRG developed their own representation of this research process, which they described as “The fish skeleton” (Figure 4): So it [the research] is like a fish bone, a fish skeleton. So there are different problems and different reasons… they are the fish bones. The first one is overload [in work], not enough knowledge [referring to fish bone number two]. There are many problems and many reasons and we will look at that to prioritise which ones, and then we come up with solutions. And then which solution will resolve number one, number two, number three… (Ms Tran summarising) So you might come up with a solution for a problem and try it out to see if it works? (Primary author) [Discussion between PRG members] Yes. So they [the PRG] think “participants” defines it very well what they are doing. Because they are participating, they are the ones that come up with these and these and these [referring to the numbered fish bones], and prioritise these and come up with a solution. And you are just supporting them. (Ms Tran summarising)

in the research. PRG members sought reassurance from the primary author that their workplaces would not be identified in the research, nor would the research require the participation of clients receiving their services. The criticality of maintaining the confidentiality of research participants and of discussing with research participants how their engagement in the research may impact them was highlighted here. Further, in international contexts, language and cultural differences have the potential to impact understanding of research proposals and outcomes even when presented in participants’ primary language (Brydon, 2006). A critical role for the PRG was highlighted here as members guided the primary author through this process so as to ensure safety in the conduct of the research. Conclusion This paper has described three cycles of one phase of a cross-cultural project in which participatory research methodology is being used to support international research in a majority world context. Interviews occurred at 24 months post-graduation to identify the nature of the graduates’ professional practice, a PRG was established to guide the future research, and exploration of professional issues the PRG wished to investigate further was commenced. The engagement of the SLP graduates and primary author as co-researchers facilitated mutual learnings. The vital role of the interpreter as a member of the research team, the importance of repeated discussion of concepts to clarify understanding, and the impact of technology and local context upon communication and collaboration have been identified. The criticality of establishing open communication was highlighted in discussion of ethics and safety in research. Speech- language pathologists seeking to support service development in underserved and/or majority world contexts are encouraged to forge partnerships with international colleagues that arise from collaboration and support mutual learnings, for it will be within these contexts that initiatives may best meet the unique needs of culture and context. The next cycles in this research are evolving; and, it is anticipated that further inquiry into the barriers to the professional practice of SLP in Vietnam and actions to support this practice will follow. Opportunity will also be afforded for ongoing exploration of the dynamic of collaboration between the members of the PRG and primary author within a cross-cultural context. Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this paper. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Participatory Research Group to this research. The contribution of Speech Pathology Australia through its 2014 Higher Degree Student Research Grant, and the support of the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation of Victoria, Quang Minh Temple, are also acknowledged. 1 The terms “minority world” and “majority world” are frequently used in the literature to replace phrases such as developed/ underdeveloped countries, North/South, First World/Third World countries, industrialised/ emerging nations. 2 A further 15 students graduated in 2014. 3 In Vietnam, the profession of SLP is known as speech therapy.

1 2 3

4 5 6

Figure 4. The fish skeleton

It was within these discussions that the title of the PRG was raised. The primary author had previously proposed that the PRG be referred to as the “Advisory Group”. However the group indicated that this was not a suitable term. As summarised by Ms Tran: For research, “advisory group” is not something that exists in the Vietnamese research. If you do the literal translation of advisory group, this means that people are higher than you are, telling you/advising you what to do, so that’s not right in the Vietnamese context. They [PRG members] say they are part of the research, they are participating. So that describes the role very well. The term “participants” was agreed to and the term Participatory Research Group (PRG) adopted. Another important outcome from this cycle of the research was discussion pertaining to issues of ethics in international research (for further detail regarding ethical considerations in international research, see Australian Council for International Development, 2016). Several of the PRG members reported their workplace directors had requested information about the role of PRG members

113

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 3 2016

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au