Field Feasibility and Acceptability Testing of Action-Based Psychosocial Reconciliation Approach in a Post-Genocide Rural Community in Rwanda

Background: Interpersonal/psychosocial reconciliation is highly prioritized in post-Genocide Rwanda. Despite the need, empirically sound strategies have been extremely scarce. The proposed study is a segment of a broader services-research effort to develop, evaluate, and implement a novel and empirically supported interpersonal/psychosocial reconciliation approach termed Action-Based Psychosocial Reconciliation Approach (ABPRA), that is authentically founded on Rwandan people’s lived experiences of reconciliation. Methods/Design: The proposed study consists of two major steps. The purpose of step 1 is to develop and empirically validate a set of outcome measures, termed the psychosocial reconciliation impact scales module (PRISM) to assess beneficial impacts native to ABPRA. We will employ hermeneutic phenomenological analysis (van Manen, 2016) of pilot interview data to generate item pool. The purpose of step 2 is to field-test the delivery of ABPRA in Rwanda to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, exploring and illuminating potential procedural uncertainties in conducting a larger-scale evaluation of ABPRA. We will follow the guidance on pilot study by Thabane et al. (2010). Discussion: The study is an essential step to advance the project to a full-scale experimental evaluation of ABPRA. The project holds the possibility of making available and accessible, an empirically supported and meaningful approach to conflict resolution, genocide/war prevention and peacebuilding in Rwanda and other war/conflict-affected regions around the globe

Are geometric morphometric analyses replicable? Evaluating landmark measurement error and its impact on extant and fossil Microtus classification.

Geometric morphometric analyses are frequently employed to quantify biological shape and shape variation. Despite the popularity of this technique, quantification of measurement error in geometric morphometric datasets and its impact on statistical results is seldom assessed in the literature. Here, we evaluate error on 2D landmark coordinate configurations of the lower first molar of five North American Microtus (vole) species. We acquired data from the same specimens several times to quantify error from four data acquisition sources: specimen presentation, imaging devices, interobserver variation, and intraobserver variation. We then evaluated the impact of those errors on linear discriminant analysis-based classifications of the five species using recent specimens of known species affinity and fossil specimens of unknown species affinity. Results indicate that data acquisition error can be substantial, sometimes explaining >30% of the total variation among datasets. Comparisons of datasets digitized by different individuals exhibit the greatest discrepancies in landmark precision, and comparison of datasets photographed from different presentation angles yields the greatest discrepancies in species classification results. All error sources impact statistical classification to some extent. For example, no two landmark dataset replicates exhibit the same predicted group memberships of recent or fossil specimens. Our findings emphasize the need to mitigate error as much as possible during geometric morphometric data collection. Though the impact of measurement error on statistical fidelity is likely analysis-specific, we recommend that all geometric morphometric studies standardize specimen imaging equipment, specimen presentations (if analyses are 2D), and landmark digitizers to reduce error and subsequent analytical misinterpretations

Review of audit and assessment tools, programs and resources in workplace settings to prevent race-based discrimination and support diversity

There is consistent evidence that both interpersonal and systemic race-based discrimination continue to exist in Australia and have a detrimental impact on health and wellbeing (Paradies 2006; VicHealth 2007). Both systemic racism and many forms of interpersonal race-based discrimination are at odds with popular understandings of racism as ‘terror and genocidal passions’ (Cowlishaw 1992: 26-27). There is continued resistance in Australia to the view that a person adopting a moderate tone, disclaiming any pretence to superiority and defending ‘common sense’ propositions can be engaged in racism (Markus 2001: 10). However, recognising racism only in its extreme forms renders invisible its recurrent, everyday expressions (Essed 2007). Even consciously, egalitarian people may hold negative stereotypes and attitudes, of which they may not be fully conscious (Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner 2002; Fazio et al. 1995), with the consequences of subtle, unintentional bias ultimately being as adverse as more overt biases (Burgess et al. 2007). Consequently, a definition of racism is adopted in this review that goes beyond both popular conceptions and legal definitions to encompass any treatment that results in unequal power, resources or opportunities across racial, ethnic, cultural and/or religious groups (Paradies, Chandrakumar, Klocker, Frere, Webster, Burrell et al. 2009). Organisational contexts, such as workplaces, have been identified both as places where race-based discrimination occurs, as well as a priority setting where anti-discrimination and diversity can be supported and enhanced (Berman, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, and Victorian Multicultural Commission 2008; Paradies, Chandrakumar, Klocker, Frere, Webster, Burrell et al. 2009; VicHealth 2007). Organisations provide a natural environment for contact between people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds, and are places where established social norms are shaped. Therefore, organisations can play an important role in modelling and enforcing anti-discrimination standards (Paradies, Chandrakumar, Klocker, Frere, Webster, Burrell et al. 2009)