ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Historically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews. METHODS: Guided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process. RESULTS: We built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional "consultation stage," was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8. CONCLUSION: An Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.
Subject(s)
Indigenous Peoples , Humans , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
A SINE-like repetitive element (ROn-1) has been cloned from the tilapiine cichlid fish Oreochromis niloticus. The element is 345 base pairs (bp) in length and consists of a transfer-RNA-like domain with putative RNA polymerase III recognition sequences, a tRNA-unrelated region, and a poly(A) tail. Approximately 6000 copies of ROn-1 occur in the haploid genome of O. niloticus. Southern blot analysis revealed that ROn-1 is an abundant element in the genomes of many African cichlid fishes, but absent from the genome of the Indian cichlid Etroplus.
