Midway debrief, and test driving my work so far

We're now over half way of the five weeks that we have to deliver our projects. Yesterday, we had the midway debrief session, with all the Jawun secondees. In style, we got out of town and gathered round a campfire, where every secondee spoke briefly (and some a bit less briefly) about the way they were tackling their projects, how they felt they were progressing and what the major challenges had been for them. I feel very lucky that my project is a very close fit to what I don't get to do much in my normal role, but do enjoy doing very much. And with my work experience in research partnering, I can deliver some very relevant input on the Project Brief.

A detailed narration of a project

These clay pans would form a brilliant foundation for ice rinks. Just flood and wait for the frosts to come!

My Project Brief is a well thought out document that asks me to deliver two things:

1. Develop a process for evaluating research requests, in line with NPYWC strategic objectives
2. Develop a process to enable NPYWC to be more strategic in engaging in research partnerships

I aim to do that by writing a well referenced set of recommendations, that will be underpinned by a number of key resources that will form the toolbox for staff of the NPYWC to be more confident and deliberate in the way in which they engage in research partnerships. The second part of what they've asked me to deliver, can't properly function if the first part doesn't come off. 

Today I tested two of the key documents I’m developing for the Women’s Council, that will help them with the first point. I trialed them with a small working group, comprising four team managers and Fran Whitty, who currently is the Jawun Regional Director, but who will shortly take up the role of NPYWC's Deputy CEO. In addition we also talked about the outline my recommendations. 

The first key part of the toolbox is a process map, or really a quick reference guide. It describes the actions and responsibilities of the research partner, as well as those of the NPYWC during five phases of research engagement. It comes with links and references to underpinning resources, both existing ones, and new ones, developed by me.

The second tool is a traffic light document to help assess how well balanced a proposed partnership is, and specifically, whether the project is tailored to working with Aboriginal peoples, fitting cultural and ethical norms and guidelines. This document was actually initially developed by the Chair of the Central Australia Human Research Ethics Committee, who kindly supplied it to the Women's Council. I've made some small amendments based on discussions I've had, and the response of the working group was really quite enthusiastic. The wider discussion confirmed that I am on the right track with my thinking. This was obviously good news, but also a relief, with less than two weeks to go!

It's an interesting experience, coming from a highly organised, risk-averse colossus such as the University of Melbourne, to an organisation where processes around managing research are currently as good as non-existent. My biggest perceived risk for my project is that I will overcook, over-engineer and over-regulate processes. People who know me as a notorious process by-passer will laugh a little at that.

And while I thoroughly enjoy thinking up fit-for-purpose and pragmatic processes, I think the main reason I like it, is because a relatively light touch approach will be the best fit for this organisation. And in reality, what the NPYWC needs is the tools to be able to level the playing field between them, and colossuses (colossi?) like the University of Melbourne.  

It has to be said that there are some excellent reference documents out there already. I'd like to draw attention to the companion document to the Values and Ethics Guidelines by the NHMRC. Keeping Research on Track: A guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about health research ethics. This document basically answers half of my project brief. Which means I can reference to it, provide some more detailed specific context for the Women's Council, and then move on, to focus my attention on developing even more supporting documents. Favourites that deserve a special mention include for example * Items to budget for when you're actively participating in a research project, and * actions to take in case of (perceived) researcher misconduct.

Next step: prepare a presentation for the Manager's Meeting, on Tuesday, to take them through the outline of my recommendations. I'm hoping for a lively discussion, to get some further input on the work to date, so I can finetune my course for the last week. And to nurture some buy-in and support along the way.