Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study

Background: There has been considerable examination and critique of traditional (academic) peer review processes in quality assessment of grant applications. At the same time, the use of traditional research processes in Indigenous research has been questioned. Many grant funding organisations have changed the composition of their peer review panels to reflect these concerns but the question remains do these reforms go far enough? In this project we asked people working in areas associated with Aboriginal health research in a number of capacities, their views on the use of peer review in assessing Indigenous research proposals. Methods: In semi-structured interviews we asked 18 individuals associated with an Australian Indigenous research funding organisation to reflect on their experience with peer review in quality assessment of grant applications. We also invited input from a steering group drawn from a variety of organisations involved in Aboriginal research throughout Australia and directly consulted with three Aboriginal-controlled health organisations. Results: There was consensus amongst all participants that traditional academic peer review is inappropriate for quality assessment in Indigenous research. Many expressed the view that using a competitive grant review system in Aboriginal health was counterintuitive, since good research transfer is based on effective collaboration. The consensus within the group favoured a system which built research in a collaborative manner incorporating a variety of different stakeholders in the process. In this system, one-off peer review was still seen as valuable in the form of a "critical friend" who provided advice as to how to improve the research proposal. Conclusion: Peer review in the traditional mould should be recognised as inappropriate in Aboriginal research. Building research projects relevant to policy and practice in Indigenous health may require a shift to a new way of selecting, funding and conducting research.Jackie Street, Fran Baum and Ian P.S. Anderso

Developing a collaborative research system for Aboriginal health

The definitive version may be found at www.wiley.comObjectiveInvestigator-driven research and the use of peer review are contentious in community-based research and are particularly problematic in Indigenous research. In this project, we conducted a qualitative study among stakeholders in an Australian Aboriginal majority-controlled research-funding organisation to examine the research funding process.MethodsA steering group guided the project and contributed to the research findings. In-depth interviews (n=18) with stakeholders in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health were conducted to canvass views on the research funding process and options for alternate processes. A discussion document, supported by an extensive literature review, was provided prior to interview. This research was an iterative process where the discussion document and interview schedule were revised as the research findings informed the project.FindingsParticipants overwhelmingly endorsed a move to a more collaborative research culture, although the form the culture might take varied. Suggested elements included involvement of grant funding bodies as brokers in building collaborative networks and the substitution of named 'critical friends' for blinded peer review. Barriers to changing the research culture to a more collaborative model were described.Conclusions and implicationsA collaborative structure with targeted project development would permit redistribution of the time and effort (previously expended on peer review) into research development and would increase community participation in decision-making in the research funding process.Jackie Street, Fran Baum, Ian Anderso